[Json] ECMA-262 normative?

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 30 September 2013 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CCB21F9D62 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.182
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2hUo-2omj0J for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB2421F9CDF for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8UEliCk024042; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:47:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890DAD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.13.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EA208B4; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:47:44 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <52448254.5090209@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:47:43 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F2D7291B-5E70-459C-885D-B48C5342A8F5@tzi.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <23C96FBA-3419-4C97-A075-462F7443013A@vpnc.org> <52448254.5090209@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: [Json] ECMA-262 normative?
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: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:47:57 -0000

On Sep 26, 2013, at 20:52, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> there is the question on whether or not the
> document should simply normatively reference ECMA.

I'm not sure this aspect was picked up yet.

The current draft lists ECMA-262 (1999) as a normative reference.

A quick reading of
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html
"IESG Statement: Normative and Informative References"
shows that this is an erratum that needs to be corrected.*)
The reference must be informative.

Grüße, Carsten

PS.:  As people sometimes don't have the ability to use links in a message, the juicy sentence is:

> Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work. 

If we make that true for ECMA-262, we have seriously broken the document.