Re: [Json] The text in draft-ietf-json-text-sequence

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 15 July 2014 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 3C6491B2841 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 a7jORfHpYfdk for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B281B283B for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA1232E0B2; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:14:17 +0900 (JST)
Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 2b06_91bb_c10d8e2f_29f6_4fea_be8d_2d6373c67253; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:14:17 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A276BFC81; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:14:17 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <53C4E2C8.90708@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:14:00 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
References: <FD9026FF-BDC5-451C-ABBC-0608AB63B819@vpnc.org> <53BB44CB.5040503@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20140715063234.GC2256@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20140715063234.GC2256@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Knr_9DWRVSSAzZzvFPkJy0XJNWg
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] The text in draft-ietf-json-text-sequence
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: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:14:22 -0000

Hello Nico,

On 2014/07/15 15:32, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:09:31AM +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:

>> [The above are just a reflection of the fact that I think that this
>> format (it's not really a protocol) is unnecessary and therefore
>> broken from the start, and therefore it's broken with whatever
>> separator there is (except with ',', i.e. simply as a JSON array).
>> The problem of diverging opinions is best solved by abandoning this
>> spec.]
>
> Do you feel that the IESG ought to request that the RFC-Editor do not
> publish if we pursue Informational RFC publication?  Please explain in
> detail how this protocol is harmful the Internet.

"harmful" is a bit too strong. I used the word "unnecessary". Good 
engineering includes *not* doing stuff that isn't necessary. Good 
engineering includes avoiding unnecessary minor variants. Good 
engineering includes exploiting reusing solutions (i.e. JSON arrays), 
rather than reinventing (a slightly edgy) wheel.

In my opinion, the IESG should never have chartered the WG for this work 
item, because the WG wasn't ever actually asked whether we want to work 
on this. It was just included in the follow-up work after completing the 
base spec for reasons that I can only speculate about (e.g. the new WG 
charter otherwise looking a bit thin?).

In my view, it's never too late to abandon this work; I'd be sorry for 
the work you invested in drafting, but we could save the IESG, the IETF, 
and the RFC editor some work. The former two might be avoided if this is 
published as an independent contribution, but this would happen outside 
the WG. If that avenue is persued, I'd probably urge the IESG to request 
the addition of a comment explicitly saying that JSON arrays are a 
better solution.

Anyway, I hope I don't have to spend too much time anymore on this, sorry.

Regards,   Martin.