Re: [Json] JSON Schema

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

A few procedural notes to correct some misunderstandings. (Wearing no 
hats, just lots of scars from earlier IETF work on JSON and lots of 
other data formats...)

On 21 Jan 2018, at 18:48, Henry Andrews wrote:

> So... the point of me sending this email was to answer a request made 
> to
> the JSON Schema project that I investigate the working group.  The 
> clear
> answer to that is that this working group is closed, and a new one 
> would
> need to be chartered.

If you want an IETF standard, yes.

> It's not clear to me that we would want to charter
> such a group now, although I would be interested in anyone's input on 
> that.

There appears to be interest in something around schema for JSON; it is 
not clear if there is interest in starting from the specific spec at 
https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec. I bet there is some 
interest in that, and some interest in something else. This is quite 
typical of requests for the IETF to adopt work that originated outside 
the IETF, with mixed results in any of of "adopt with the intention of 
making only minor changes", "adopt and make major changes", and "start 
from scratch while getting inspiration from the existing work".

The IETF sucks at this, as do most other SDOs. We're just more public 
about our suckage.

> There are several projects
> underway in the same general space, some with quite a bit of momentum 
> of
> their own.  One of them may be a better choice for an IETF working 
> group,
> I'm not in a position to say one way or the other.

None of us are; that's what consensus is for.

> Filing issues or asking questions on our slack channel will probably 
> work
> better than hi-jacking this mailing list, now that I understand it is 
> no
> longer active. :-)

What you have done is *not* hijacking this mailing list: it's a 
completely appropriate use of it. And the list is active, as you have 
just seen. It's just not an IETF WG any more.

> I would be interested in pursuing the IETF process (heavyweight or 
> not)

It will be the former :-(

> , if
> there is interest from the appropriate segment of the IETF community.

This list is a good proxy for that appropriate segment. Everyone who is 
interested in this topic should feel free to use the mailing list for 
it.

--Paul Hoffman