IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-i-json-02

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 12 July 2014 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993181A00C0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z_TJ0SFrMCma for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5741A00BF for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hq11so3537822vcb.13 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=xLhU1JrDLGDepuBRb+Su574KbYOEpVXElzaALsCCF2o=; b=GyyVM/DRAZgawKpk9xv7sn2G4W1qdaJ4FNkgiIQ38goQw7Nwni1J62sfZG265v7iWr 0pmAwjLyU/Nelj6trAvjc2Dfs4IQ9y+diQjEiKF/ghGBV1574hxfsI0u2M8lJ8BoO9dh iPyNz7liqYsaMS3mt03MSf9Iohnof15y0cqmsTnEmrspq3MCC+z5f33QupVtylxW2RW7 23jUbLSLsxw0/5EwWeJ37J3BTouOxLtiICkHR2QggdpqZ5xV+reYQwRUi9v36R/byihI WIo9HMRfLjdF44gXiH8B9lhI2zOCcv1D7mImv9VKNQuKDMjSDjkA7dfJMeCbh638pkPv jClg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlF5Z0niY7idj2pCHug2Aok4bE68YrNCkhfOcVE39gOf0Yy/vlToFa4qVAz9AifTvs3X9KP
X-Received: by 10.52.242.104 with SMTP id wp8mr2089152vdc.31.1405127193975; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.221.49.199 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <c8391b02d1f045ce85747420d7f9e756@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <53B21F69.7010101@cisco.com> <53C066AE.9050104@cisco.com> <c8391b02d1f045ce85747420d7f9e756@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 18:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itqj-Fg05=ybKCEs9NTYjTM=gtS7=e8mCVTP1GwfjcNxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135f6cc42e38704fdf4ab94"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/EFMSN2uOwjX5cK5HD6ThjpmSP7g
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-i-json-02
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 01:06:36 -0000

Well, I think this discussion sort of already happened, but here’s the
existence proof: If I-JSON had existed at the time JOSE was getting going,
they could have simplified their specs, and implementers’ lives, with the
following statement: Use I-JSON.

Also, the collection of constraints IS special: It covers everything that
7159 calls out as an interoperability problem, and says “don’t do that’.


On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> > > Please review the document and send comments to the Working
> > > Group mailing list < json at ietf.org > or the co-chairs <json-chairs
> at
> > > tools.ietf.org > before the end of the WGLC.  Any and all comments
> > > on the document are sought in order to asses the strength of
> > > consensus. Even if you have read and commented on this or earlier
> > > versions of the draft, please feel free to comment again.
>
> I think I originally supported the development of I-JSON as
> useful named profile of JSON. However, based on recent discussions
> and further examination, my opinion now is that the particular
> collection of constraints isn't special, and the document should
> instead be recast as a "Best Practices for Internet Use of JSON".
> To facilitate using the document as a normative reference, each
> constraint/best practice could be named "no-dup-names",
> "ieee-numbers", "utf8". If you then want to name the union
> of all constraints in the document as "i-json" that would be OK.
>
> Most of the document (including the normative language
> associated with each constraint) would remain, but the emphasis
> on "i-json" as a unique and complete profile wouldn't, and
> would make it easier for referencing applications to choose
> those constraints that are meaningful for them.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>



-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email