Re: [Json] Last call: JSON charter

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

On 30/03/2013, at 4:39 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Please review and send your final comments on the proposed charter for a
> potential JSON working group:
> 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON
> 
> 
> If you have been participating on the list, please chime in on this thread
> even if you have already said you agree with that text.


I haven't been following closely.

Two things in the charter don't make much sense to me:

> During that work, the working group may collect change requests, and
> may choose to propose a more significant revision of the JSON specification
> if there is rough consensus to do so.  Proceeding with such a revision
> will require a recharter to get community and IESG review of the proposal.

A "more significant revision" of JSON than that described before this text will, by its nature, not be backwards compatible, so it won't be JSON.

If people want to start work on a JSON-inspired syntax and call it something else, that's fine. However, using the good name of JSON to try to get leverage for something new and born in the IETF isn't, and given the experience of the recent OAUTH debacle, I'm surprised it's come up again so soon. Haven't we learned that particular lesson?

I think this paragraph should be deleted.


> There are also various proposals for JSON extensions and related standards.
> The working group will consider those proposals only after the initial work
> is done, and must recharter with specific work items for any additional work
> it might select.


At the risk of repeating myself, I do not think that a generic "JSON Working Group" that takes on any work that happens to use this format is good engineering. I know that this text is only advisory, but it's tilting the table in that direction.

I think this paragraph should be deleted. Alternatively, the phrase "JSON extensions and related standards" should be changed to something like "JSON extensions for reuse by other standards" or similar. I.e., "related standards" is a charter license too far.

The charter already says: 

> There are also a number of other JSON-related proposals for
> Standards Track that would benefit from review from both the IETF
> and the larger JSON-using communities created by a working group
> focused on JSON.

I agree with the sentiment, but isn't the review function already fulfilled by the apps directorate? 

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/