IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] JSON Concluded? Well, maybe not

Richard Gibson <richard.gibson@gmail.com> Sun, 31 December 2017 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <richard.gibson@gmail.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 49303126B6E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:43:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 zLP3ml53cr46 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:43:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (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 2197A1200C1 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:43:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id b141so8870758wme.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:43:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UNtCujC66SFkPw9KSn6kf+wk+qDItLBKWo0t0P1Ex5c=; b=qluhseBjDHdKtuvUybEHsomHnVLgz2Jv9LtjDOO/oFpe0T/zP+gfxO30w0mAdnYLbQ M6oFQJJ5eeW0zkyXTSzl1rMHJVOFxP8xPUK5BZ17IhpBtzqGm3JTK9n+LMdOZcRjSqRq mCaYhLytNtTMV7TFBrd2/vUOq68NG5ZKhCU9KIjwazqJ2wLmb5aAQxSOFhS/3jFK6l+4 erhLXvNlRCsAhFBWffimdQLYwN4/XTZqFqJIGd9g4s3a//hB8RNVJU+fMnhnNKTetL4f SdAq2PME2DqCXJeobKQADoiaGEAST5D4nsRerjyi3VB3qSWSoQBvMFUeaExKnNXB3u/e A2pA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UNtCujC66SFkPw9KSn6kf+wk+qDItLBKWo0t0P1Ex5c=; b=M5tGYYkfMn4ruxAFET36sDXTrtdhbI/gmAeTWrSsfjTwRYG/1sdXTqa5U3u42VfeyX EpaQv3C/KJ/BvQ7dlkFUu4WhSc9Ud3leh5bUjpDk9LyctMbyOVFt8T6lmcut4Pcet4/l qrxRLUxwJ536BCj6dXUmEwEdSuep6Rrj1Uqzk1IWZq5IeZO5o5YpomL25DRl5p7u3sqf sbIBODA5xDXeb9Nk2iBEKILonRdkt41ASZcUmP/hoXk8cA61J+b2TEwSynT9K4GZq6qw FeEeWgI7ndXsksUxNvYESjIuOIMf+x0oLTW/c93QAZAB2vkS0HImsm0UXG7663Q4mz1K rJ8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJHqUHn20cDvsiCH1KyEUs0HAw1RWC4VYEJGMb6gXo7+71WqSF2 MJ06D+hbYL/lIxpzvyyZ3wNZmKJFU/2OQwEkb78=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotkQSkHSUfD4YOGvHsE4eIyLFqVG20Iu9vYENsVYgwDaCFMaOLPBW5Nd8NFDOzl1fJUfzhs074zp49ITE5qBx0=
X-Received: by 10.28.160.23 with SMTP id j23mr30503100wme.54.1514745792614; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:43:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.160.189 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:43:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <13860352-ef8e-1d4b-2eff-27e275c25e3a@gmail.com>
References: <13860352-ef8e-1d4b-2eff-27e275c25e3a@gmail.com>
From: Richard Gibson <richard.gibson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 13:43:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CALH+fvqBGu0i=LcciYgOLSwbQJXfqgcXTdd=rxvfHfqiRyBj7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082f8364e4d7c10561a73ceb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/SiFuSdiN7ikdjq0jHeYs2qVNy4k>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON Concluded? Well, maybe not
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:43:16 -0000

On the topic of JSON normalization, I believe that canonicaljson-spec
<http://gibson042.github.io/canonicaljson-spec/> covers all cases while
respecting prior art like
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form-00 and RFC
7638. I'd like to get it published as an RFC to handle scenarios like those
mentioned by Anders Rundgren, but am not sure how to go about doing so. Is
this a good place to ask for assistance?

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> Congratulations everybody to the revised JSON RFC!
>
> Does this mean that JSON is "done" for good?
>
> Probably not because the concept I have mentioned from time to time, the
> ability adding a digital signature to a JSON object (in contrast to signing
> arbitrary Base64Url-encoded data), is still very much alive.  In fact,
> there is an I-D in preparation aiming at reducing the current proliferation
> of "DIY-standards" for dealing with this highly requested feature.  The
> only real challenge is agreeing on a suitable way "normalizing" JSON data
> during parsing and serialization.  Such a scheme will be like an extended
> version of I-JSON (RFC7493), potentially having an impact on "ordinary"
> uses of JSON as well.
>
> Happy New [and optionally signed] JSON Year
> Anders Rundgren
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email