Re: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes

Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> Fri, 15 March 2013 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <cyrus@daboo.name>
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 2D9AC21F8CFB for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHU807PDbNXT for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [173.13.55.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2E521F8CD8 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EBF3F21DDE; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com
Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06absE-1m0mO; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:06:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [17.45.162.188] (dhcp-244a.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.36.74]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 838D03F21DD3; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:05:58 -0500
From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, json@ietf.org
Message-ID: <343B12E966B7596EC5808648@cyrus.local>
In-Reply-To: <5379220D-65A8-4D5B-9502-43DB71417364@vpnc.org>
References: <5379220D-65A8-4D5B-9502-43DB71417364@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a3 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; size=991
Subject: Re: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes
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, 15 Mar 2013 13:06:11 -0000

Hi Paul,

--On March 14, 2013 12:03:25 PM -0400 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> 
wrote:

> It is acknowledged that there are differences between RFC 4627 and the
> ECMAScript specification in the rules for parsing JSON. Any changes that
> break compatibility with existing implementations of either RFC 4627 or
> the ECMAScript specification will need to have very strong justification
> and broad support. All differences between RFC 4627 or the current
> ECMAScript specification will be documented in the new RFC. This
> documentation will include both the WG consensus for the rationale of the
> changes and the expected impact of the changes.
>
> Does anyone have a problem with this change?

This mentions "current ECMAScript specification", yet there was also talk 
about the "in-progress" v6 ECMAScript spec. Do we have a timeline for when 
v6 work will be complete? It seems like we would want to base or diffs on 
that if it is available in a timely fashion.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo