Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> Fri, 01 March 2013 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
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 4ECED21F93D9 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Vzl40gZ326+a for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8276E21F8B96 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4663; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362153947; x=1363363547; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2/JZ0dIGRB2oaIvSrOca6fuXnYfuDcJsBhm90opyDHQ=; b=alWVrmjmlkKzUcxi2YO53tfro9PpL4WO+Ty+38x1d7I3VJzJg3EH749m QeW/Zc5AJrVbuzKm2VH5GzFgoDSCC4jYVuKX92E3y8mUXCzF9z7ABBzS8 fmv5DzXU4CKbiAN6/gP0MvE+bF5m/1HmfYeR9AV0zLZ0I4tfk9GcXenCk w=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 2283
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMnQMFGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABEwjZ+FnOCIAEBBHkQAgEIIiQCMCUCBA4FCAaIBQzBG45jMQeCX2EDjyiBJocTj02DCIIn
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,761,1355097600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="182693380"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 16:05:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21G5k1K019346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:05:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.203]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:05:46 -0600
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
Thread-Index: AQHOFh2sw1yCCbVghkiyxCFY7/PbTZiRP4sAgAAdEICAAAbZAIAAAiiA
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:05:46 +0000
Message-ID: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED941151564ED@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVCWPp1LA_NCqdzpRetPbsoZ=fBb0APWr8=MoJqe8RxkTQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> <CALaySJJjsHZn5=_WgYwSOR-urHEiwXqYZ0i6shEuTNMn=TNWSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJjsHZn5=_WgYwSOR-urHEiwXqYZ0i6shEuTNMn=TNWSw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.88]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7526302-2919-4D69-9945-C49C2C788CDB"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "<json@ietf.org>" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
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: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:05:48 -0000

On Mar 1, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
 wrote:

>>>> I suggest against having an initial list.  It's difficult to predict whether
>>>> people will have the energy to review once the charter has been approved.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one item: make
>>> 4627 Standards Track?  And then require recharter to add any other
>>> items, which would be listed as individual work items in any recharter
>>> proposal?
>> 
>> That seems reasonable, given how excited people get about the "any other
>> work items" and how that excitement could delay or derail the main reason
>> you wanted the WG. The recharter effort can start after 4627bis document
>> is in IETF Last Call. It's not like we're in any new rush for particular work.
> 
> I've edited the charter proposal on the appsawg wiki:
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON


It looks good to me.  Get the bare minimum done first, and only then consider additional work.


- m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.