Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

+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
>