Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <> Wed, 20 February 2013 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502E821F869E for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:43:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MJWy0ycqaYue for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989FB21F8686 for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:43:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1568; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361382200; x=1362591800; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6iTDYIUx+FW7zTeqzT4DESjjFpgju4Hi8ZteRpv1utc=; b=M6dmmfPWBS13T2QymSdGbIqqFCEapJja3x+Spl6AJP9hC4aAjUxy8G3H FGgEB46XRdVOSpVR1sDpK574XREaiv1Ywv5zIbBA+msps5SPHMRl8sCPq Zyn6xOP+MTWwzw1cNXnq2Vmf88K83GPdAP9ysiLGs4Agl9eeeZn8+3EKP w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAPEJJVGtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFwFyBAhZzgh8BAQEDAX4LAgEIGAokMiUCBBMIiAQGwFyOWwI4gl9hA6cHgweCJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,702,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="179261350"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2013 17:43:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KHhK23017067 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:43:20 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0600
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
Thread-Index: AQHOD4+Hfs91qE+RakqjfTLbwh+3+ZiDZ5qAgAABZoA=
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:43:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:43:23 -0000

On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Tim Bray <> wrote:
>> My proposal is: do nothing.
>> I use JSON for protocol design and work all the time, and have not observed any interop problems in the wild which originate at the JSON parson or construction level.  I give the incoming text to the library and it Just Works or reliably reports a syntax botch.  I give my data structures to the JSON serializer and cheerfully send off whatever comes out. I read specs and build clients and servers and, when things break, it’s because I’m stupidly using a bogus name or value in some field, not because of the serialization.
>> I suggest that there is not a problem here that needs the investment of precious IETF time.
> -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.

Just to reinforce Paul's point; while things seem to more-or-less work out, there are serious questions occasionally asked about the appropriateness of JSON for use in security protocols given those differences.  It might seem like re-arranging the deck chairs, but that arrangement can be important for acceptance.

- m&m

Matt Miller < >
Cisco Systems, Inc.