Re: [Json] JSON for Internet messages

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 C8D2811E820B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RDuGlsRwTosi for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F64811E8203 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4013; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372871040; x=1374080640; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=ffsKD4Pl5UaBQfs6MUjg+nEP9OqI6u/Jy73WexQtWXg=; b=dzYLpvOXKS2PM/i4GD9CTzZG5iCbhlkBZRrMwEpVI9l6kyG1hP/pnlhD IHjgvBs8Nz0zkDOAe9kiTk/2fP12xk4R3tSx/vImyg5zrULS0O1R4FgbX Zi2kETmZSwGry6x2ECyNSTeMfacrCg6KEpBGUSrTMMSa2shICG5Fv8HpM g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFAOhY1FGQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABQCoMJhAOFXbdQgQQWdIIjAQEBBCNWEAsECgoJIQICDwIsGgYNAQcBAYgLqXCRE44vgTwHglGBHAOXSZFFgxM6
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,989,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="83927716"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2013 17:03:59 +0000
Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.175.226]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r63H3u1U028335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 17:03:57 GMT
Message-ID: <51D4597C.20405@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:03:56 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
References: <CAHBU6it55C5vCNLBki1LvjpWd4fANY8LdC4fzxj3a2G_+q=qSA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6it55C5vCNLBki1LvjpWd4fANY8LdC4fzxj3a2G_+q=qSA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050907000404030208030702"
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON for Internet messages
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 17:04:05 -0000

On 7/3/13 6:34 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>
> From that point of view, the following seem obvious:
>
> - All JSON messages MUST be encoded in valid UTF-8. 
> - All numbers MUST be of precision < 2**53 (use strings for your big
> crypto numbers)
> - All JSON objects MUST have unique keys
> - All JSON messages MUST be either arrays or objects
> - Software receiving something violating any of these MUSTs has
> encountered conclusive evidence of serious upstream breakage and MUST
> NOT trust the contents nor act upon them.
>
> That’s all. It leaves lots of things to argue about (BOMs?
> Non-characters? Control-characters? Maybe just objects at top-level?
> Should this flavor of JSON self-identify? If so, how? etc etc)
>
> I want there to be an RFC that says these things that protocol
> designers can point to and just stop thinking about markup syntax.
>
> I don’t think our mandate lets us write that RFC.

I think it does, if you believe these are the minimal changes necessary
for interoperability.  The standard for standards goes UP as you go
through maturity.  Deal with this now or someone else will end up having to.

Eliot