IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sat, 15 March 2014 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 5E18A1A0179 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 d3sK8S_Zzr1X for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3511A0166 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 10so2550616lbg.25 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=O5TZ/rQ8Qa5c4oDNpKr+Odo+q3n9Yc5qeNqMJnXqInM=; b=So21Gh5/0O9Vd1wHl4bDyd17yW9VebedD+iV4zRGily0I8Xp/d3Qa5ybXl+1LXWrVA uekCvTlGcnOdd7v5fyoTRAlvETieqyHKIRZtBdRGuNmQgnsEc3DcwfBB8cMLAskPyM2I +Lm0pzv2G//55Bje3BKN1Qug65BmGTDnFcqx84DwaiuEqWPmXKOou/fjzVc2QIVRY5LY ugaa8C4j7VcQbru6yV5bdKDXfQWcz3LkSvHV9u9XezJepMyyFI6PhQk/Jxh6jQekTiCQ w5rxMOWKXdh78xQJY0qpMmsEJp9JkuEu8VGwD9Enf5J86sQ4m6AMjOgalYvcdk9mGQB8 uXOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.169.10 with SMTP id aa10mr45482lbc.72.1394904786498; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.234.229 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <890D8059-2280-48D5-820B-2E75852AF334@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> <D93BF076-90B2-4AF0-BDD6-29BF4332AABF@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOhqfJWX747jZs40amrdRV5T3aTxrMHsCvW-5jdN9zq40w@mail.gmail.com> <C77851F1-FBB2-47AD-B263-565593899D8C@vpnc.org> <890D8059-2280-48D5-820B-2E75852AF334@vpnc.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:33:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwjy9PRSdNre_jw5DmogeekN05zyEZP5-YdFs87FzdKaEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c385e04b7bde04f4a89460"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/X4Uvy11J75mq_kYgK-mlPM_BZ5Q
Cc: 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 17:33:16 -0000

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>wrote:

> Here's a JSON format that could definitely use a simple JSON description
> language of some sort. The draft authors went the ABNF route, and it's
> completely unclear where they are going until you look at the examples and
> realize how trivial the format really is.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dulaunoy-kaplan-passive-dns-cof


Yuk.

ABNF should be reserved for describing an encoding scheme. I am pretty
unhappy with the way it is used in RFC2822 and in HTTP. The designer of
each header has complete flexibility to choose whatever whacky encoding
scheme they like.

Remember that standards are agreements on stuff that does not matter.
Whether the tag is encoded one way or the other does not matter. But once a
choice is made, the spec should stick to it.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email