Re: [Json] JSON or I-JSON?

Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com> Fri, 26 February 2021 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <petejson@codalogic.com>
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 427AE3A045E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 06:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uu5-tcekGjyY for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 06:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsa-online.com (ppsa-online.com [217.199.162.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACBA13A040F for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 06:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 22747 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2021 14:44:44 +0000
Received: from host31-49-16-155.range31-49.btcentralplus.com (HELO ?192.168.1.72?) (31.49.16.155) by lvps217-199-162-217.vps.webfusion.co.uk with ESMTPSA (AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 26 Feb 2021 14:44:44 +0000
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
References: <90cddfc3-c320-5ac0-210b-c77636383a6b@codalogic.com> <6E254975-F9A7-4563-9C12-4FE52180C56A@tzi.org>
From: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
Message-ID: <9c1b04a1-f8e5-5ff4-06a4-9e5b8599128e@codalogic.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:44:43 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6E254975-F9A7-4563-9C12-4FE52180C56A@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/R8N48GCU1K26nGLxTZX2wYiaQao>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON or I-JSON?
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:44:51 -0000

On 26/02/2021 12:03, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Quick question if I may...
>>
>> When defining new IETF standards that want to use JSON, are they referencing JSON (RFC8259) or I-JSON (RFC7493)?
> 
> The answer requires Science (grep through rfc8[3-9]??.txt, so no-one references 7159):
> 
> 7493 only
> 	8259 only
> 		both 7493 and 8259
> --------------------------------------
> 	rfc8366.txt
> 	rfc8414.txt
> 	
...
> 
> No indent is 7493 only, one indent is 8259 only, and double indent is both.
> (Of course, RFC 8610 and RFC 8949 reference both, one for the JSON format and one for the I-JSON limitations.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten

Many thanks, Carsten.

I noticed a few 8259 only ones mentioned it under "Informative 
References" (not Normative) and others were only interested in the MIME 
type registration parts.  So it's perhaps not so surprising that 7493 is 
not as prevalent as you might at first hope.

I guess which you reference of 7493 and 8259 may also depend on which 
end of the Postel Principle you are on :-)

Pete.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
C++ tools for C++ programmers, http://codalogic.com
Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------