IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 72CEC1A062A for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:06:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7aE3paFLzOVT for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C481A0628 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ec20so4334445lab.9 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:06:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Uqh1nQyqEP10GCpCAWxguQuqBKmY5luBXE48kwJFoeQ=; b=iQBBCtFD8mFqjmfDnHtbmg31FVCG09zs5tEtIf7FfEHaTlpYTltvypy9Ba0BbI1SAc RS5FDvmNG7YMCiwgQtVniOdTKHFqzTgJuRVY/3kegJu+Mcs610beIxMoVqYNrvqo4CIH iRq7Yx7DPbyyR2HSmtE3mtzo9yUprTG6NvHWiLcHFbVkZOc0HC1ZpCR4YV8hJhRY/knK DVuFl1smPSr1RCJACYUiCNNF2/aUOrRe9JjdWWYClIKsWPBWhRPcLJF3bkdbDXQvV3Ry r1eaU0ok48jMmnvlKmOR782L1WrP56aFDxEJ5YViRXkrR5o+obfQfjVRXFrjQb2NPLqD 8V0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.138.233 with SMTP id qt9mr3345221lbb.34.1391990796761; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:06:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOhrwprBoA9KFgZP9KaoX9eygnWf-aPpMe-JVLOYUphCBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52D9B39C.5020102@cisco.com> <1C1347D2-0D99-4D49-B4C1-199246167D23@vpnc.org> <CAMm+Lwj0phrmP563tBbZJKHeYw=Azh1as6GZOA6rANPpC6PJgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iv+-9xQYAjZdfZk7+GeA6J+sjaV5era3L+PiJ9RoauBYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwh0O4+iuaJMUhYgj+0GS8e9b_nZtNNX91hOmjUypsgkTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhu0GZY9CVQrqD4SyjHLVEoEg1DtYj_6imZbbHtzX2eEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuR0MPm9q483jBMqTRkGV1f2giGNhp+UciQ7rRnrvcEBA@mail.gmail.com> <C271F837-40FD-4E87-A56B-0F0357553923@mnot.net> <7E1F7FE6-E7A9-4B7D-902C-A60D39B7B994@vpnc.org> <8AA70C014EEED3158A177F1C@cyrus.local> <85017697-48CF-420F-9935-B78193953493@tzi.org> <CAMm+Lwie3B8+pyXNuuoMn6nWLy7Bva4vmsdZ0b2yTACrUL8xpQ@mail.gmail.com> <B9C98CBC-D63E-4A42-AB4C-9752B3A34C11@mnot.net> <CAK3OfOhrwprBoA9KFgZP9KaoX9eygnWf-aPpMe-JVLOYUphCBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:06:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwgqu+71pxmUoi4HyodiuavCbMEyJxbQRTmUaQALx-6MWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01229710f8c0c504f2021cd1"
Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed rechartering for the JSON WG
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:06:39 -0000

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> There's no reason that we should have a single schema language, and
> for any document it should suffice to use whichever schema language
> (if any), is most appropriate.  Therefore I wouldn't suggest that the
> WG have a [single] standard schema as a work item, but I'm not sure
> what we stand to gain from having only Informational schema languages
> -- they can't be used to specify Standards-Track protocols.  If
> there's no appetite for working on one or more schema languages, so be
> it.
>


This is no longer the case.

Internet Standards have been allowed to down-reference Informational for a
long time now. There are some additional steps but they are minor.


Since the schema itself only describes the data format, it does not even
need compliance language.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email