Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Mon, 01 August 2016 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@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 7FF0912D536; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
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 YNMIdcdC9iq3; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (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 344D212B00C; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id j124so162959527ith.1; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T8SbVmw6yYvPB1+poUlb1+uZZjbS4CHnz23Qr2USP/4=; b=N8kMhMeBLcihxHyBQToA5wT+ESsNVXsFVBOh2RJej22ntzW455dWn/6RC04Ki2SNZB fbxnNqhKqh+yKtxy3OmdCtRC1zyXmt2m1mDOM0YnDHHNXkyfqedW6t3qFSu2fHWsPDjK 8p3zAaP9udYW9NkS5cAOuclsD+F93UgxhXk0TUAABpiT/5Qq6j1ssAxqpcW+HKMoz4po S2mu0r+JSQdbAzge1mPGzR7gmuukA/g1k9f2JDTYBaQiwZVultWmmgWRXayc5U47OqE7 qi3jSALktTl8o8pJhFc9VEWCIX+bQL7iCqpCm5brIIvinBGGdrHRZayuuDpD3w7s1dmO +jzQ==
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; bh=T8SbVmw6yYvPB1+poUlb1+uZZjbS4CHnz23Qr2USP/4=; b=fvwkDnTInWr3aJvMiV3DRD3z/kzPp69WzEZQplL0BrBpQUO7Z5nL5u7NymbrhWoJq2 AMxhMenS0mBMEARZMi3E3/8vv6S64ixvnYDDgRfdtr4vV1fhBuzC1+ywy9iWQrGN+w9Y c4r0vGbkru1qcEHlOq2ZYPFqDW32g4XkjHe/uCXvk2cBhdgXchVN4lxv9+GclJokVHKn 5AE/EEQSlZLvS8NwO3CYfx5LSRsYAaBT67JNzibdSvSDa10u7d6tru1yEewcaqXzr/HF Nq8Ppv3yG8AsTrUi2UdYGg06a82wQBeRfbiScd/PPDx4O8HVfakcBso3NLHjqfnVkqcu XOqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutawH0qaNmCFPYTYzlj0UP1guQ9OCfxqjPpnmz8WvSbXjjSFH7L+x1Xk7HZEqcVyCNfu3+2rl4DzhlOgQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.144.68 with SMTP id x65mr51251561itd.70.1470038695514; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.85.213 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1364632d-a951-4c86-cd96-35982fbb670c@gmail.com>
References: <CDD4C92E-863F-40FE-8D58-D764C9533FAA@cisco.com> <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> <ac67f171-d8b0-f6c6-f7db-d58c01c4505f@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <881fe29a-71fc-8012-6488-c823f0ebfbbf@gmail.com> <1364632d-a951-4c86-cd96-35982fbb670c@gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 01:04:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwyJo_a3JckaqB5LdYis8qtVVq9uHrwM5xNRCbavPS0QQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07e806409a220538fe0efe
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/TVrrrzWW7yjOBKSw5kkttGcmqOI>
Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 08:04:58 -0000

The issue doesn't seem to matter.

- Rob

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>; wrote:

> On 2016-08-01 03:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>> I don't think that trust enters into the equation here.
>>
>
> The obvious solution is removing the ECMA reference. Not because
> "The IETF has a problem with ECMA", but because the idea of having
> two organizations being authoritative/normative for a standard is
> pointless unless they work together on a single document.
>
> ECMA should consider referencing the RFC instead of duplicating it.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>> A standards document, be it from IETF, or from some other organization,
>> should
>> be complete before being considered for final review.  This is not the
>> case
>> for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 because one of its normative
>> references
>> is not available for review in the form that it needs to be to support
>> draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.  Trust in ECMA or WG chairs or ADs is no
>> substitute for having an actual document to review.
>>
>> If there is trust involved it would be trusting that ECMA doesn't turn
>> around
>> and remove the reciprocal language in a future  revision of ECMA-404.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On 07/30/2016 03:13 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a
>>> mood to
>>> trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs.
>>>
>>> (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the
>>> reference to the ECMA side removed.)
>>>
>>> Regards,   Martin.
>>>
>>> On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we
>>>>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated
>>>>> publish of the two documents.  But having our side ready to go,
>>>>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in
>>>>> that process.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism
>>>> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it
>>>> also contains the change we expect.
>>>>
>>>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not
>>>>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC
>>>>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a
>>>>> downref.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to
>>>>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)?  That would make it *very* clear
>>>>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in
>>>>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>>
>>>> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> json mailing list
>>>> json@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>