IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 15 March 2014 02:23 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 E437F1A0264 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
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 xe9Ib7nam6EH for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7B31A0269 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s2F2NXx4012973 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:23:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iv=pUmq1Jdi+VkFnEG0+Ef7pBnSMtPdVNaHFxu6x5RFBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:23:32 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D93BF076-90B2-4AF0-BDD6-29BF4332AABF@vpnc.org>
References: <53238F2E.5010105@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itv0q7ZTrran+dKTcUxoSxNHYnND7yLmSPF35--iUMA+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi6Ha0r55vb3VNsgz40Bds6HYZ-aM9u-JwyVmoRDuZaWw@mail.gmail.com> <420F0699-9F27-435E-924C-28966A743EAF@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6iv=pUmq1Jdi+VkFnEG0+Ef7pBnSMtPdVNaHFxu6x5RFBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/V8hz8VSw8UUVjNN3P6hgUjiNGWk
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus on Whether or Not to Adopt Nomenclature Document(s) in the Charter
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: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 02:23:46 -0000

On Mar 14, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Actually, I think it is relevant.  If someone were to show an example of an RFC where a hypothetical nomenclature/schema spec would have made the RFC better, that would be a really good argument in the current charter discussion.

Phill's proposal is to change the protocol from using ASN.1 to JSON. That's a discussion for the other WG, not here.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status