Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-i-json-02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

/me doffs hat.

Speaking as an active participant of the JOSE WG since its charter:

As far as I can tell, I-JSON contains everything that the JOSE WG has
reached consensus on but is lacking from RFC 7159.

- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

On 7/17/14, 2:18 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> There’s nothing in that section about IEEE floating point (or
> anywhere else in JOSE that I can find. And i-json doesn’t say
> anything about canonicalization, which would likely be what JOSE
> needs.
> 
> 
> 
> “they’d switch to it in the blink of an eye” seems like an
> underestimate by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that there is no obvious way that JOSE could make
> normative reference to the i-json document as it stands, even if
> everyone agreed to it (but agreement would depend on the details of
> what the reference said).
> 
> 
> 
> *From:*Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] *sSent:* Wednesday,
> July 16, 2014 12:16 PM *To:* Larry Masinter *Cc:* Matt Miller; IETF
> JSON WG *Subject:* Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-i-json-02
> 
> 
> 
> For example,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31#section-4
>
> 
> 
> 
> If I-JSON were published, they’d switch to it in the blink of an
> eye, based on previous conversations.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Larry Masinter
> <masinter@adobe.com <mailto:masinter@adobe.com>> wrote:
> 
> I think at least one motivating use case is called for, if not
> more.
> 
> 
> 
> But scanning the JOSE documents, I didn't find where you would use 
> I-JSON instead. Could you point it out?
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com <mailto:tbray@textuality.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> Well, I think this discussion sort of already happened, but here’s 
> the existence proof: If I-JSON had existed at the time JOSE was 
> getting going, they could have simplified their specs, and 
> implementers’ lives, with the following statement: Use I-JSON.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the collection of constraints IS special: It covers
> everything that 7159 calls out as an interoperability problem, and
> says “don’t do that’.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Larry Masinter
> <masinter@adobe.com <mailto:masinter@adobe.com>> wrote:
> 
>>> Please review the document and send comments to the Working 
>>> Group mailing list < json at ietf.org <http://ietf.org> > or
> the co-chairs <json-chairs at
>>> tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org> > before the end of
> the WGLC.  Any and all comments
>>> on the document are sought in order to asses the strength of 
>>> consensus. Even if you have read and commented on this or
> earlier
>>> versions of the draft, please feel free to comment again.
> 
> I think I originally supported the development of I-JSON as useful
> named profile of JSON. However, based on recent discussions and
> further examination, my opinion now is that the particular 
> collection of constraints isn't special, and the document should 
> instead be recast as a "Best Practices for Internet Use of JSON". 
> To facilitate using the document as a normative reference, each 
> constraint/best practice could be named "no-dup-names", 
> "ieee-numbers", "utf8". If you then want to name the union of all
> constraints in the document as "i-json" that would be OK.
> 
> Most of the document (including the normative language associated
> with each constraint) would remain, but the emphasis on "i-json" as
> a unique and complete profile wouldn't, and would make it easier
> for referencing applications to choose those constraints that are
> meaningful for them.
> 
> Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ json mailing list 
> json@ietf.org <mailto: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)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see 
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTyDQDAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1VtAH/3a/g4wCIX1RIcc3d9kyArAU
+BueHk2g9M2yiOkdjsPOpZQhZ5N5KS4Egxt6i7R2/WhBisdwxmJ9HS8rzKLUDNCi
FCDc2CXjF701qAj5fkBhQGOHCvRR58tnEW19xM4gYtG5WG27qus+8dF8FSJWYhOY
UKc1k7wTrWlZRbjyzfPNuHWQbIMPEg9mhfMF7PtSqqkINv3Vao9gWTdYiwKM8NgP
MagyMcuOg/vgC1wQpwwWhNSjMIRwGZkqUVLcG4du6OKFkxqy6EZFtPU+TdcAzgF2
QSuwtS29TzK1BUw04cqjKl+G2vIjrqwgxLPUY6dYpaiWpSMFbxjz6ESBUKznsZ8=
=YTK7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----