Re: [Json] JSON merge alternatives

Paul Hoffman <> Thu, 20 March 2014 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B001A08C7 for <>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sUPfr349xcfI for <>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39EED1A08B3 for <>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s2KF6qh1073031 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:06:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:06:50 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20140319234549.GA3471@localhost> <> <>
To: Nico Williams <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON merge alternatives
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:07:07 -0000

On Mar 19, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Nico Williams <> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> I.e., draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch, which has the same problems
> mentioned recently on this list (e.g., using null to mean delete).

Then those problems should be discussed more. There was at least one thread about "null to delete", but I don't think it got enough focus.

As others have said: the document is already in another WG, there is no need to bring it to this WG. If you want to speak about the document, definitely join the AppsAWG mailing list at <>. Also, if you want to volunteer to edit the document, saying so there would be great.

Do note that that WG already has lots of relevant readers: people who write applications protocols that use JSON. Having both them and JSON partisans in the discussion would be a good thing.

Matt and I are not looking at empire-building and see no reason to take this document from an active WG just to put it here. One of the great things about the IETF is that many people participate on (or at least lazily follow) many mailing lists.

--Paul Hoffman