Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-i-json-01.txt

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 17 June 2014 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 5A36B1A03BD for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 9csHATm6A4LT for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com (mail-ve0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D65D1A0111 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id sa20so6159300veb.10 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MMMRwfYSDPhF5CN7pzfnAYgjQpoDn2vEN4Q0dyt6K/8=; b=YD42NyTsBe5quPQFaacYbuySmDyDQSDOSruj1KU/82TeBeb3wSjTOamsECGbPsonvZ P+lG+A08CmhkZBHPNhsMr1HdrokGN0uhzc4kBr5upRjxLphfDNNSNKynbUcBdaBgutJm Hj/rqBpLMU1WDKnHGlTB2Oeo8EeuGtmd7vdUcdwOXQqGjDLoaCRCwNj/2aK0eSh4c6jl rDaS0Fjtohs8prDnHdXTc1PjnIbAvX0+dVvz8PtXON2CjW1QBkHsNOwCnrZniH/KW+Xs evE4HzFlGTDB4ruV+Ege3GFt+vjBZeI2X1YZh2bIWAvjb53NcYOYDspQIpDw44upwWhV KETA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxgTvLHM7Js/8S1zo4wGKwLJoa2Mb4Az8Q+j83QVA1ey+Wr5I3h0Gl+q4jqleFquo3amW+
X-Received: by 10.58.118.168 with SMTP id kn8mr2330978veb.44.1403027640171; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.85.103.37]
In-Reply-To: <CFC1BCB7.4FE64%jhildebr@cisco.com>
References: <20140613195805.1386.5992.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHBU6ivy-aVuSZPQ1gMp0bXW0yMYq9Vhi1Bydb809rfBR_ag=g@mail.gmail.com> <CFC1BCB7.4FE64%jhildebr@cisco.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:53:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isENp-JVJ6FVuhrKNsoWqq94dpzYBos0zGGrh9b6UwW2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/YOu_dq10zA0FnK0tEkzMXSyGHr8
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-i-json-01.txt
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: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:54:03 -0000

OK, I just made an -02 pre-draft, anyone want to sanity check before I
submit?   Get it at
http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-02.html
http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-02.txt

diff at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-01.txt&url2=http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-02.txt

I took almost all the suggestions from reviewers except as follows:

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
<jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:

> s2.2, "For applications such as cryptography, where exact interchange of
> much larger numbers is required, it is RECOMMENDED to encode them in JSON
> string values", I suggest adding some guidance on encoding if we have a
> quick consensus on decimal|hex|base64url|etc.  Otherwise leaving it as-is
> works.  Note that JOSE chose base64url for good reason.

Not sure I get this... for big numbers, it’s just digits, right?

> s4, I think there ought to be another sentence in there about why you
> might want to specify I-JSON.  Namely, that you're expressing that as a
> sender, if there's a bug in your code you would rather have the receiver
> fail on processing than try to recover.  Alternately, that could go in the
> introduction.

I eventually decided that the last sentence of section 1 probably
meets our needs, but if someone wants to propose language, go for it.