IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 31 July 2016 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 619E712D58A for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 VjT7woZa8flG for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E436612D581 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id w38so89312118qtb.0 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Uf3s2aZ8JnxpC9eafzEwMu/cMXEXw0ViQ2acACUKo9g=; b=YmQZm/kWbxiztw1mpxSlKlBgFZr4AtFa+HpWDktqmLP+rAF1lCwnyWRZJ/199h9yjK ErTrH+FZdihkhlPsECugeAevdw2r+IwYhUKjr3k1wLujPJU49VrIWyDD8SlmXN76yi5v Nftt3yM66PoTNLYp0gl6RO/AlGXy4F4/g1jXUPnVK/CVWmxJHfpMpYyH7RnMGFM1MJtG zfDBB6X46/lYYOeV4oPUiS8rOJ7KJiigddqQlvuuWDD6fqb+MvAHBC8dXcxB5KavmTr3 XSeYBcGkm7HM4ORBCPxKEMkrFn5FAtcagCW57T+GmdlxvgZ8yJhO6Y32O/Gauq1wbYUo 4qWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Uf3s2aZ8JnxpC9eafzEwMu/cMXEXw0ViQ2acACUKo9g=; b=KhiHjn8xEungQZDl2BAo5sRERT4DrzIWw6pyM017bHdxktCa+v566WFXSj2qUVricr aetkBRTKe21lQKdMQffnUJ73bBSbmB1sfz5f3B+i4z+6UkSO0jl/27xVWIHCkXkV5AAX /E+T8Tbcdblz8VEO9GZ+17tvuH+ewWqPCUxNZmzkhR7WVgA1uWWCToJvNMp+5u7u5kb3 zDkn2JWL04SH6Mw/9YTCJ+tYEPNqPTgTjWtf56CUxbpn7hl+g5TyAckOf55k/0J3Fgqa SvfjsOz0qoJU3vGs1Ss8LjyJkQGESGVlTFIttFna7CqATJhcU6iBL79fvel/TXmzu6U0 Nztw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuP2LsBrQ+PK7DhbotSNn90P70c/Hvnqk2TzcdOx0MLkG7nT92uWE5zw4PkCQK5RcAaU1myHVxENU8TWw==
X-Received: by 10.200.42.219 with SMTP id c27mr78978129qta.88.1469947219995; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.98.212 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [209.52.88.19]
In-Reply-To: <ac67f171-d8b0-f6c6-f7db-d58c01c4505f@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <CDD4C92E-863F-40FE-8D58-D764C9533FAA@cisco.com> <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> <ac67f171-d8b0-f6c6-f7db-d58c01c4505f@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivcX2viz36CMAPR4vCN8GRc9erjFosKxK6i3W0XDQc1NQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11406e72e31c510538e8c1b6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/MrYUN6omUUQS_VSE2VdD3B9RQqc>
Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 06:40:23 -0000

So, I guess the IETF & ECMA representatives will have to meet in the
parking lot of a strip mall in Akron, Ohio, or maybe Lyon, France, and set
up their laptops side by side on the back of a car, and count down:
3-2-1-COMMIT!  Then they’ll shake hands and go their separate ways, while
the gunmen on the nearby rooftops stand down.

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
wrote:

> I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a
> mood to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs.
>
> (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the
> reference to the ECMA side removed.)
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
> On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we
>>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated
>>> publish of the two documents.  But having our side ready to go,
>>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in
>>> that process.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism
>> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it
>> also contains the change we expect.
>>
>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not
>>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC
>>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a
>>> downref.
>>>
>>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to
>>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)?  That would make it *very* clear
>>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in
>>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing.
>>>
>>
>> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>> .
>>
>>


-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email