Re: [Json] Comments on the proposed charter

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 20 February 2013 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A4521F8815 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:12:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L9vcveVDXWPk for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B25A21F8600 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF28C4004E; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:19:56 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <51243F1C.1030607@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:12:28 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
References: <E0597F3D-773C-4CDD-8087-09B99ADCF156@mnot.net> <CALcybBD-ksPe71YY9BY-NZ9VP0tNqToySn8zp+9swtM=P9MiCw@mail.gmail.com> <95501AA5-EA26-4D74-8C6B-187F0E52C524@mnot.net> <CALcybBA__74RTGwr6f0KV4=pw5jnRLGRs6Y9YtuYi=YBpyAYJA@mail.gmail.com> <51243BC6.8080909@stpeter.im> <CALcybBAKWQ+hH=LEXN-Rn90deGZN4tDtSgLV1dnnkjuLp-_+gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBAKWQ+hH=LEXN-Rn90deGZN4tDtSgLV1dnnkjuLp-_+gw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on the proposed charter
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:12:35 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/19/13 8:04 PM, Francis Galiegue wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
> <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: [...]
>>> 
>>> And that is what I said exactly. Your initial wording let the 
>>> impression that this working group SHOULD NOT care about the 
>>> existing, concrete uses of JSON.
>>> 
>>> And this is where I disagree. They SHOULD care. Not steer, but 
>>> care.
>> 
>> It's not about caring, it's about the working group's contract
>> with the IESG and the IETF community at large. It's true that
>> the individuals working on base specs in the JSON WG (if formed)
>> will probably care about various uses of JSON. It does not follow
>> that it's best to work on applications of JSON in the same venue
>> as the base specs.
>> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with that too. My argument is that working on the
> base specifications without an awareness of how these existing
> base specifications are used is shortsighted.
> 
> I may have misinterpreted what Mark said, but this is the
> impression I had when reading that part of his first answer.

Francis, in case you are new to the IETF, please be aware that IETF
Working Groups are not formed lightly and tend to be quite tightly
scoped so that they are able to sustain the energy and focus necessary
to complete their work in a reasonable amount of time. I don't think
anyone would disagree with the sentiment that it makes sense to define
the base specs with the uses of JSON in mind. However, individuals who
are active in the working group can maintain that awareness without
adding a lot of additional deliverables to the working group's charter.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRJD8cAAoJEOoGpJErxa2piLkQAJ8j9br2j86pq0TNYXDxHHHb
v7zGNOB7SnXIzpO80Oy6UvygBW+b2a16B3jXCLWzTCoZgkFuHjRM9BLl6XIpWdgK
OP7Nj3yNToGlCOJL26yEeMxRavfOp/rNvRJ/cdSIFuQEOlvSui1ozY9XZ6+7BLTR
9t5wR4oWFlbBacHS3zk3bKAs16bKsOj34AkitV9jYAC4wH2zSxPJEAFXqc/2DMeE
OinUVLo86EAc/JswfvXb6QOn9HKlvQxwgXmS09RqttFa4UgAxWHe9eTLdFEgCTxL
b+e7TC/6NNMfXnH67NG1tFrEbpMjr5eOMjXSpFQpjkjFLpHlR34g27dc9oLCWnp3
3nO3yoYaFj0OmfBL43yuc1F+NK+RqR8t1RmbOlt4ICOB8uZeri1JTIos3Be28jsg
ROiSxxYS+o+GPi/TNfzwsDY9+fJFc7n863PI4MHrhtG7cs2kMDis12Q8MFOj6R0T
o98wHakDWSPLIh+6opGuJXw2idGxRcJ69SFXNLdKahpl2ltZaQxIIura+KIo7VRP
F0HL5XcLa5ikPW4tn5hqG8v6mxnqngJqjrvPZbr3oJzUadhuiWZ5y/39JSzUfMxf
iOC0kZWq4PhnTZ4ryScnuHYFkoBqzf6twi4l7bE0VwyTdDeYpA/vimfdsp92pUcn
P7AoZxU3WCNxm7Flf6FW
=IVbe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----