Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics

Stefan Hagen <stefan@dilettant.eu> Sun, 01 May 2016 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan@dilettant.eu>
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 4F55912D1E4 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 01:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dilettant.eu
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 Gak2KSb5_Saz for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 May 2016 01:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay11.public.one.com (mailrelay11.public.one.com [195.47.247.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849C012D1DC for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 May 2016 01:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dilettant.eu; s=20140924; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=YdHtKIss6q861hel/mxVZsVDZC7bVHpl+FnN1Ugvmh0=; b=xUX+rytj/BqlB7BNfEyVMUhKvikpr95byWqaqAuQG1Cep2ogyORQmkC5/HUlvO2Mj9J1pnaV52o/r AaZTe/MTfuW8SSYDSVialaSo3BgoPtJZum8zLYpJu/PIt2Wqjyjy6c08x9OA+BQ47kBgYmcbm/z+BH On1HPOwQ7l1OVdww=
X-HalOne-Cookie: db3e58bffde9f0ed13578af2fc63b60f250b24cd
X-HalOne-ID: fb7ee27e-0f7a-11e6-9f8d-b82a72d06996
Received: from newyork.local.box (unknown [37.201.168.194]) by smtpfilter3.public.one.com (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Sun, 1 May 2016 08:59:15 +0000 (UTC)
References: <CAHBU6iu0j492Mzbo2HriFtjm_o5516yCsQCX9PGHvqAxhU0Zjg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6isb+A4crvdEMkMqhreXLcox3Q5O-TJeOYvb4vvUqYupmg@mail.gmail.com> <978CE59C-19EA-44E0-8AA9-620B854ACB6F@cisco.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
From: Stefan Hagen <stefan@dilettant.eu>
Message-ID: <5725C566.9040606@dilettant.eu>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 10:59:18 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <978CE59C-19EA-44E0-8AA9-620B854ACB6F@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Wwt-bZyvWxUQkxeT-gLRdFCQBRw>
Cc: "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 01 May 2016 08:59:24 -0000

On 2016-APR-28 at 19:06 in some TZ Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> Going back to an earlier point in the thread:
>
> On 11/14/15, 11:10 AM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
>> So, is there a *real* reason why a normative reference might be useful? I think there might be, and it's purely rhetorical (in the formal sense, designed to support an argument): To make it clear to the world
>> that all JSON is the same JSON no matter where it's specified.  So I think it would be plausible to add the following to the second paragraph of section 1.2 of 7159 (for convenience:
>> http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 ):
>>
>> “The reference to ECMA-404 in the previous sentence is normative, not with the usual meaning that implementors need to consult it in order to understand this document, but to emphasize that there are no inconsistencies in the definition of the term “JSON text” in any of its specifications. Note, however, that ECMA-404 allows several practices which this specification recommends avoiding in the interests of maximal interoperability.”
>
> I like this text a lot.  Adding a few more points would be useful, I believe:
>
> - The intent is that the grammar is the same between the two documents, although different descriptions are used.  If there a difference is found between them, ECMA and the IETF will work together to update both documents.
>
> - If an error is found with either document, the other should be examined to see if it has a similar error, and fixed if possible.
>
> - If either document is changed in the future, ECMA and the IETF will work together to ensure that the two documents stay aligned through the change.
>
>
> There is liaison work to do to ensure that ECMA-404bis has similar language, but I wouldn't have any problem with us publishing a 7159bis draft that included language like this before ECMA is fully onboard.

I like the proposed text with the ammendment from Joe.
This includes the need for ensuring liaison work and the possibility to 
first include this text and second initiate the ongoing liaison work.

Best,
Stefan.
-- 
Stefan Hagen
read://hagen.link
talk://eventually