Re: [Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF)

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <> Mon, 04 March 2013 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E185E21F8DEE; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:36:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oKIcZ9dnIWC3; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3617821F8DEF; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:36:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2599; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362422211; x=1363631811; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=UaJ23J4UgoPOsu5rXadWVlP2WMbZYezZtRUaOKH73FI=; b=SqoDkwHbfwM1MmIybGKeSgkFEPxmiqV6VVu6XqyAFM2YEuqjj9OI4B6B dQqZHfLk1nz5haEzkpviU89zPoMBciTqeweULgPCPFMZHPGPG8or9q6Mz baltZX3LNQ17tYZ7duOmzbcfWdiRpTd5ohHWbN1Ec4Qo1OLVKDFZVnuIO g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,781,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="183362163"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2013 18:36:50 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r24IankS007933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:36:49 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:36:49 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
To: Sadayuki Furuhashi <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF)
Thread-Index: AQHOGK6GjXC91KM//kqvccEDh6QfLJiVzFIA
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:36:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>
Subject: Re: [Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:36:52 -0000

On 3/4/13 1:01 AM, "Sadayuki Furuhashi" <> wrote:

>I'm frsyuki (Sadyuki Furuhashi).
>As the initial developer of the MessagePack specification, I am feeling
>in bringing MessagePack to IETF as an Internet-Draft at this very moment.
>I don't against having a standard itself but I really have difficulty on
>its downside: incompatibility.

(as individual)

We had a similar unrest about bringing XMPP to the IETF the first time.
We wrote very strict charter language about backward compatibility, and
became highly involved in the process.  It turned out to be a very
positive experience on the whole.  We got lots of reviews from folks that
had not paid attention to XMPP before, including security,
internationalization, and the clarity of our documentation.  The current
RFCs are so much better than we would have produced on our own that I
can't imagine not having done the work, now.  The authors from our
community got credit in the RFCs for their work; there was no lack of
respect for their previous efforts.

Another reason why msgpack is interesting to consider for standardization
is that I for one would like to use it as the wire protocol for
standards-based protocols.  In order to do this today, I would would
probably need to do one of:

- Include whatever subset of msgpack I want to use into the new protocols.
 This would be  awful, because then each other protocol that wanted to use
msgpack would need to do the same thing, and they would all choose
slightly incompatible approaches.

- Refer to your existing web page as the msgpack specification.  This
would be difficult to use as a "stable reference", since it doesn't come
from a standards body with previously-vetted intellectual property rules,
and we don't know how often it will change.

- Invent something new that tried to solve the same problem, perhaps using
a method that avoids reusing your work.  This would be the worst possible
outcome for the industry, since having two completely different approaches
to the same problem is a recipe for years of incompatibility.

I'm sorry if the communications you've had with people that participate in
the IETF have made your community feel as if we're trying to take over
your idea, have made you feel disrespected, or that we want to force
backward-incompatibilities on you.  At least from my personal point of
view, your work to date has been exemplary, and it is a measure of my
respect that I would like to help enable that work to be used by even more

Joe Hildebrand