Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 30 July 2016 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 B77E112D625; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 dbaIRZWkk5iu; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (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 9219412D8EE; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.154.200] (unknown [74.125.61.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AC97509B5; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:37:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <ac67f171-d8b0-f6c6-f7db-d58c01c4505f@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:37:22 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F76187B-4470-48B2-BD65-3A7FE1883993@mnot.net>
References: <CDD4C92E-863F-40FE-8D58-D764C9533FAA@cisco.com> <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> <ac67f171-d8b0-f6c6-f7db-d58c01c4505f@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/WxKZvloF-BFVRVSEnHKFwiuRwZo>
Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
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: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:37:30 -0000

+1, well said.

> On 30 Jul 2016, at 12:13 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a mood to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs.
> 
> (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the reference to the ECMA side removed.)
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we
>>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated
>>> publish of the two documents.  But having our side ready to go,
>>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in
>>> that process.
>> 
>> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism
>> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it
>> also contains the change we expect.
>> 
>>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not
>>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC
>>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a
>>> downref.
>>> 
>>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to
>>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)?  That would make it *very* clear
>>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in
>>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing.
>> 
>> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient.
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>> .
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/