[Json] About the Upcoming Consensus Calls

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8C321E80A1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Td5Q1OJyNB8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFC821E804C for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7989; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371612421; x=1372822021; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=zaXMQNOHaTs2GNEhER/6BY8+dD8wpMtMBm7659ptmkM=; b=Y63Tnad3eh3uum6IWQe9BjwekRJ1LEyKvEKxgG/GurG0yvCSANeuw+AR TFQ2NErC2E3sx/30d0NPVrdNR16GZF2CEQuIjzTXSX8JaN+GkEgCrU/P/ i+CLSK6BebRtPnWECbpnBSZa1t2oqsDdrIB3ic1pPaHR2KbCIo2fmWuxi Y=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 4136
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsHAKwkwVGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwl6vxiBCBZtB4IlAQSBCwEqJjAnBBsGiACaKKA/jgOBB4M4YQOQAYEsl1eDD4FoQA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,894,1363132800"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="224634448"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2013 03:26:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5J3QqRA031188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:26:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:26:51 -0500
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: About the Upcoming Consensus Calls
Thread-Index: AQHObJzW/5uiyo8eL0ipfgEQaf4VwQ==
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:26:51 +0000
Message-ID: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411528BAC9@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B0F7AD77-F29E-4108-8ACD-C923DCFB93BC"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Json] About the Upcoming Consensus Calls
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:27:09 -0000

Hello All,

Paul and I will soon be sending out calls for consensus on various topics the Working Group has discussed.  We've already sent out "PROPOSAL LAST CHANCE" emails for some topics; others will be coming as the chairs determine the topic's discussion has abated.  These missives each describe all of the proposals for a given topic, so there should be no surprises during each consensus call.

The chairs ask that we all keep our charter in mind, particularly:

    The JSON working group will have as its only initial task the minor
    revision of RFC 4627 to bring it onto the Standards Track. As noted
    above, RFC 4627 is a mature and widely cited specification. The work is
    essentially a reclassification in place, with minimal changes. The
    working group will review errata and update the document as needed to
    incorporate those, and will correct significant errors and
    inconsistencies, but will keep changes to a minimum.

These consensus calls may initially seem like voting, especially for those topics we've only gathered a single proposal.  However, the chairs are using these calls to understand the consensus of the WG.  This model is the one we feel provides the clearest understanding of what the WG wants changed with as limited a scope as possible.

As we expect many people can accept many proposals, we will ask that you indicate which proposal or proposals you prefer to see in the document, ordered from most favorable to least favorable. You should list all proposals that you can accept, and leave off the ones you can't.

One of the proposals will always be "Leave the document as-is"; do not hesitate to select this if you can live with the document's current wording, particularly if you believe none of the proposals would be an improvement.

Thank you all,

Paul Hoffman and Matt Miller