IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 05 December 2013 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 B7F071AE07C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 x3tkHFTAN-tK for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22F41AE071 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:03:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rB5G3PvV015855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:03:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iva2H-ovjmfA7=7j2KxUuXAMjhCb8fcMgKxq6hk+A9BtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:03:27 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <36CB8652-80DB-4E67-A8F6-188801D2E13F@vpnc.org>
References: <C7707CE2-C43E-4171-AE96-9FAFDCE53317@cisco.com> <CAHBU6iva2H-ovjmfA7=7j2KxUuXAMjhCb8fcMgKxq6hk+A9BtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Response to Statement from Ecma International TC39
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:03:32 -0000

On Dec 4, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> I’m OK with most of this it goes a bit off the rails in the last paragraph.  I think the ECMA process is better described as “opaque” than “closed”,

I was told that even if someone volunteered to help on a particular document from TC39, they would not be allowed to. That is "closed", not just "opaque".

> and the last paragraph gets into speculative territory.  

Of course, but it is based on lots of IETF history. That is, when organizations make liaison relationships with the IETF, things often to get smoother.

> While the not-necessarily-immutable nature of 404 is a good reason to avoid a normative reference, we don’t need to speculate on what we might do in a future alternative universe.   

We don't need to, but Matt and Pete and I thought that proposing a way forward that would lead to greater happiness was worthwhile.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email