IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 21 May 2014 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 6647B1A0886 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 fP88raRW8UTn for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8504F1A086E for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C279C2007F220 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=g8K1BEYOEt/4yweLIyA4 7o2ZZ1g=; b=P3rexyS51dAQTIsjmXb0/jeMSKwTL23gupmWEDyoYHVzfHDojyQa DDj6XTV+F2VkJpMx+B4BMVml9Oab1Fif3Oq5hk8kc+8MXQQxwFvnujjcAA0iZLow APZaPQWD2lCDfQ0mtvq4QQswnUUTqT3qKbmjgx+Ez1zQEShfXDiqI3w=
Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com (mail-oa0-f49.google.com [209.85.219.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a103.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A83712007F21D for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id eb12so2462960oac.22 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.41.104 with SMTP id e8mr53200084oel.18.1400687290143; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.234.4 with HTTP; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B8099FF7-F3DF-408B-91A5-5F061AB981D4@vpnc.org>
References: <535EB119.4000908@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itycQmqzAuxWyrFZ_v=fHdenm2csyAqtUGGu+vteh6=yQ@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1154581E82F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <CAHBU6iuqosV91W6CJyow_eaKdCNm_VOairJysuLS8mrWV+HM9g@mail.gmail.com> <ABB2BA00-6A21-4710-A1F5-49D4FB469E8F@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOig8y5KpYZ86KrMPxrJOYC_hLBew_nmyneHCC2mXX+tag@mail.gmail.com> <537BB89E.2040305@cisco.com> <CAHBU6ivpG_H=UFd1fAQednN3Q2vvJtw5DD150GnRjq+Ar3bbTA@mail.gmail.com> <B8099FF7-F3DF-408B-91A5-5F061AB981D4@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:48:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjxu-=RLZwcao+zVdvceqidFHXbQmSH2prkKoNqB=6bEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Z10Kw1ZK8EPU4CJQOwr4zFcMQAY
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level
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: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:48:15 -0000

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> <no hat>
>
> The goal of this document is to maximize interoperability. RFC 4627 and other specs had the rule that JSON texts had to be objects or arrays. Restricting JSON texts *in this profile* maximizes interoperability better than RFC 7159 did.

Is that so?  Why?  Because the earlier RFC also so restricted them?
But why should that matter now for a new profile of RFC7159?  Perhaps
because interop with RFC4627 implementations is desired?  But every
one of those I've looked at handles non-object/array values at the
top-level... (granted, I've not looked at all of them).

Anyways, IIUC Tim's proposed restriction is about his preference is
for an ignore-unknown/unexpected policy for extensibility reasons.

Nico
--

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status