IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.com>
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 28E091A06D7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 ovy5VRcZzGZB for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E13941A03DD for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1254; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1400686789; x=1401896389; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=9h9gwJa2e7/bf8Ou8hCjYy34yW1KrtlQ8k9NpjVUdQg=; b=Idv732GPjfog+vY2j+68icq4rSuarYzVcRUszWW0QJ1umM/1Hj1sZX6Z 0mkntg6op2moXBikMGeqyrpocxSyb3i6F/KSgy7KJ9edt/5syRACecr3A jmsrGQdOCqvrC1aO1Duc0NOxcX3sm3rKHlKBDpPi/RlEIMCXY7uU35J7l o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEHACTIfFOtJA2B/2dsb2JhbABZDoJ4UViCaaZ1AQUFAZowARlzFnSCJgEBBCMRRRACAQgaAiYCAgIwFRACBAENBYhBsFqlNReBKoQriEYzB4J1gUsBA5lukySCeECBbgc7
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,880,1392163200"; d="scan'208";a="326715301"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 May 2014 15:39:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4LFdmLQ031582 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.76]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 21 May 2014 10:39:48 -0500
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Thread-Topic: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level
Thread-Index: AQHPdGi105aJE7T7fEWGVLPUM+Ea0ptK42qAgAAmF4CAAG/GAP//ovKA
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CFA22496.4A774%jhildebr@cisco.com>
References: <535EB119.4000908@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itycQmqzAuxWyrFZ_v=fHdenm2csyAqtUGGu+vteh6=yQ@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1154581E82F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <CAHBU6iuqosV91W6CJyow_eaKdCNm_VOairJysuLS8mrWV+HM9g@mail.gmail.com> <ABB2BA00-6A21-4710-A1F5-49D4FB469E8F@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOig8y5KpYZ86KrMPxrJOYC_hLBew_nmyneHCC2mXX+tag@mail.gmail.com> <537BB89E.2040305@cisco.com> <3BF9B252-3CCD-4BC3-9F30-8634B483FAEE@tzi.org> <537C64B3.1010502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAO1wJ5S=zrz3E+LUxHuYFi_Y56OUJumCKdUD7B2oMQm0kdb=Qg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO1wJ5S=zrz3E+LUxHuYFi_Y56OUJumCKdUD7B2oMQm0kdb=Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
x-originating-ip: [10.21.151.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <235A02593EF4C140AF36487704FA081B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/MHngsedDrf88_au3A_0wPHvt_jM
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level
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: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39:52 -0000

On 5/21/14, 9:12 AM, "Jacob Davies" <jacob@well.com> wrote:

>Some examples from the earlier discussion:
>
>1. The retrieval of part of a resource by path. Requiring a JSON
>object envelope is pointless and asymmetric.
>2. Patching just part of a resource by path. Again, requiring an
>object envelope is unnecessary.
>
>The most common transport for JSON is HTTP, which already provides for
>an out-of-band key-value space for extra data. It probably is the case
>that JSON objects are the most suitable choice for the messages
>exchanged in most protocols, but there are exceptions as described
>above, and in any case I doubt anyone is really confused over whether
>an object or a string is the most suitable message format.

For these cases, why send JSON at all?  Why not just send a string?  That
way you also don't need the unnecessary double-quote envelope?

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email