Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON

Paul Hoffman <> Fri, 01 March 2013 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D09921E808A for <>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:31:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.682
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPftRH4ohtJg for <>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0203021F92B1 for <>; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:31:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21HVg2I001467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:31:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:31:42 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:31:47 -0000

I made two more small changes to the proposed charter; comments are welcome.

- Changed the community review sentence to say "There are also a number of other JSON-related proposals for Standards Track that would benefit from review from both the IETF and the larger JSON-using communities created by a working group focused on JSON" to indicate that we would benefit from JSON-using developers who are currently not active in the IETF.

- Changed the "breaking compatibility" sentence to say "Any changes that break compatibility with existing implementations will need to have very strong justification and broad support, and will have to be documented in the new RFC" to make it clear that the resulting RFC should make any changes clear.

--Paul Hoffman