Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933571B597C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 XSXT4oPSGoDz for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com (mail-io0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) (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 498FA1B5982 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so32292841ioi.3 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-type; bh=5LRuBCj6c6ZUqnRdTVdDbtcOVJ8B5M2g8PCd4hWjGko=; b=RDEt2k/LEEJAPNuSbWoAYVrKMHpCyHw8gBg7n6JaryVjo6pkj8dw4ui0NNNHnD10ad qD6oTD39Om0RxlE7fmIiqSms5jaxPr+rLkZL8qtPf8rhh0Pnto0PSaHI/AHySMyrUqGq UoR8Dskl94FV2V8KzbyuYrAYLX1bLuAnatkt6/G6AoPXD5SGih70IVL++9759+46YMl6 C2Voqin7NuVDc+OlT67MlaLXY+2sHtDX8+y1vmrBgsLv0W9MAcRlJPWG/rWm78ZpCuiI /cXDSF1WouSJVOxiy0xpTspfaM8og9ZFlkz+7fxZ2PvFm0ulkpNzmsjOMs77H5PCPbWM AQog==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm95QZeOtsAh3R6npyKVrOk76uOaV8qDdWfedwtCDS+DN3Tuk8mLjJL9gvId7eUtBZLAfkg
X-Received: by 10.107.163.204 with SMTP id m195mr2273183ioe.65.1443579742476; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.30.4 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.248.61]
In-Reply-To: <DB74C466-D542-42D6-95B0-690A564435A9@cisco.com>
References: <DB74C466-D542-42D6-95B0-690A564435A9@cisco.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuoYwK31Kd0qudGvuUUkofc0bYag3hdJBojmHvy6P2HgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140fb70c18ef20520ed9941"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Qid4jSLvAFxVKpFYzJWrFRAisZ8>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:22:27 -0000

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com>
wrote:
​​


> ​​
> * references ECMA-404 and is a reference for ECMA-404
>
​​
I note that RFC7159 already has an informative reference to ECMA-404. I
take it that the proposal is to have a normative reference?  Query: is the
reference on normative vs informative
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html
authoritative?

Quoting from that document: “Normative references specify documents that
must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or
whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work.”

I’d like to hear some reasoning on how ECMA-404 meets either of those
criteria.

[Yes, I agreed to edit.  While I’m highly unconvinced on the merits of
7159bis approach, if the WG chooses to move ahead with this plan, I’ll put
the angle brackets in the right places.]

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