Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 B147821F87DC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:34:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.457, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YyoXLy08AHTk for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f41.google.com (mail-pb0-f41.google.com [209.85.160.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E1521F87D4 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id um15so3140882pbc.0 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:34:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=2b6zEaPA/dHuAFvRe4fEKZqXTJp8dsUaSZSvvac98sc=; b=VKxN+xcPhvBxOyay3HSGbcQCXahpmdtRpYKNMKN9VN96abtD55t9TzdnHPECT91HZy tjifqpLnPgSlwPxHsou1MoaFTGab7EuKCwtwBLfnVoeflHf30+NxPtqUTqHnPKumEkj1 MgrM9GVPgtWf2W92VRGnm9zT+opYP7K+5k+fbPDjsrRPTPQvucYz3nk65iqHVbEikzOg wTw1dPiSVUlJiVV+IVcMyJgZuWt+fSVwZKpETmEB7gFcFkOcYTwjsDxk7WCSBvRpcafz NofnAfRajPs9GpQvxQsDdb+8S/1Z9Yz8cWKGRP6DcTznBh/MOutcsBl4jMBdvbdewh9U VFSw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.130.35 with SMTP id ob3mr5232476pbb.92.1361399665014; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.66.249.129 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:34:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <4D80AE86-4DBA-4236-9E2A-A06F2F9C30F7@mnot.net>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com> <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org> <4D80AE86-4DBA-4236-9E2A-A06F2F9C30F7@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:34:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it76A7WikwkTqzdxhWmnSmEZdoNuWew9myF9AGNf-LG0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10ceb36e35ff04d62f8f22
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6E4TUFqFzoCFRjXBCz0MB6WczlYQF/u05GhdttkTCzP3qaO6tvdpowSwzBsjm9gs9Vi0G
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:34:30 -0000

+1 (Not that I have any idea if he’s interested) -T


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> On 21/02/2013, at 6:02 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> >>>> My proposal is: do nothing.
> >>>
> >>> -1.
> >>>
> >>> There are places where RFC 4627 has SHOULDs where some processors do
> one thing and others do something different. That should be cleaned up in a
> standards-track RFC, and it should be done with lots of JSON developers and
> users having a discussion that comes to rough consensus.
> >>
> >> One I-D as simple as this hardly justifies a WG.
> >
> > Getting broad consensus on changing a standard that is implemented
> widely outside the IETF justifies the effort to have the time and space for
> consensus. This is *not* just IETF work.
>
>
> I don't know. I think I'd be fine if we just asked Crockford (perhaps
> helped by a willing editor) to do 4627bis and then have the AD sponsor it
> on Standards Track.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>