IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Tue, 10 January 2017 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 67F4F129B9F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 01:30:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=Ec0Hzp71; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=iFivLLBY
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 qxCkvF-PrG8a for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 01:30:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C35C41279EB for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 01:30:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A27D209F0; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:30:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:30:16 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=FYTkJd3iqHCau7ThKzh/GKyVO4 E=; b=Ec0Hzp71UYLWC9m4ZlN2q3kwvDL+Mo86hFD6mhxOjdshOjWVBBlP/ABV09 NH58TczussIPRfuZt521SVY5GWMu/YFhul9Ep/UL2AnvSL3c2tcRSIJqxIxIAvkd CFXEdWjRSRda/fOHDdmyc6s9tVnv9CVcrCTlRUF2CH4rebelA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=FY TkJd3iqHCau7ThKzh/GKyVO4E=; b=iFivLLBYWOYReY/k4voFE00uOeCfS95NZs lkUSDFa7oh0m4TJMWFNO4RKQ0e33qo8qpQRvv+6sUJtqGJtdWb3b8hosiPkDcEEL eqdBvt9q3LubhqW4HBf6qPkJDC+raLI1rk7qo1wniM2WeeLOxkioN9L64xhzhoCk lP7+15kCE=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:qKl0WI1k60xFub6G_7vH69F6lm136nUOQbX8ycsOIvGuJ0VDjCd6pw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 041B16ABF3; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:30:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1484040615.3549806.842843153.32106FE4@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_148404061535498060"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-34b48c55
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6is8a7B88JpdzWBeKsQx59f=+xEBspdOA55Vsc-PpRof9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7f687476-a694-0f7d-2e2f-84d23a9ea430@gmx.de> <78D16356-4962-445D-A513-44E432F6C87F@fastmail.fm> <c25e8737-a6fb-031d-75b1-3112e12c0d8e@gmail.com> <6BC16581-9781-4704-B763-401EF9C2142C@fastmail.fm> <ba0f9df3-028b-9d98-2a72-f9dd289e0056@gmail.com> <9ed27357-8114-e59a-b094-0f05fda174f7@gmail.com> <CAHBU6is8a7B88JpdzWBeKsQx59f=+xEBspdOA55Vsc-PpRof9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:30:15 +0000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/bB22OdKhWIxh4ZuaJm0yGrBBke8>
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 Jan 2017 09:30:29 -0000

Tim,



On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, at 08:04 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

> I’m assuming that in the near future there will be a note from the
> IESG to ietf@ mailing list advising us that they will be taking this
> matter up?
My understanding is that the action will be taken around RFC publication
time. So either the ECMA document going to have a similar note to what
is in 7159bis, or the RFC will be published without the current note.


So can we please get the document over this finish line?



Thank you,

Alexey



> 

> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 

>> 

>> On 01/09/2017 02:06 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:

>>  > On 2017-01-09 10:59, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>>  >>

>>  >>> On 8 Jan 2017, at 19:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>  >>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>  >>> wrote:

>>  >>>

>>  >>>> On 01/08/2017 12:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>>  >>>> Hi Julian,

>>  >>>>

>>  >>>>> On 7 Jan 2017, at 15:35, Julian Reschke
>>  >>>>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>  >>>>>

>>  >>>>> Hi there,

>>  >>>>>

>>  >>>>> I just noticed that the document went to state "Publication
>>  >>>>> Requested"
>>  >>>>> early December, with no notification of the working group, and
>>  >>>>> (IMHO)
>>  >>>>> some of the few feedback that the document received during WG
>>  >>>>> LC being
>>  >>>>> ignored (such as

>>  >>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg03945.html>
>>  >>>>> and
>>  >>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg03978.html>
>>  >>>>> ).
>>  >>>>>

>>  >>>>> What's going on here?

>>  >>>>

>>  >>>> I moved it to the Publication Requested state in datatracker in
>>  >>>> order to
>>  >>>> get the document done and get the WG closed. Negotiations with
>>  >>>> the WG
>>  >>>> chair and document editor are ongoing. WGLC comments will be
>>  >>>> handled (or
>>  >>>> at least replied to).

>>  >>>>

>>  >>>> Best Regards,

>>  >>>> Alexey

>>  >>>

>>  >>> Progress on this document was waiting for progress on ECMA 404.
>>  >>> I don't see
>>  >>> that anything has happened with ECMA 404, so this document can't
>>  >>> progress.
>>  >>

>>  >> It is quite the opposite: If the document doesn't progress, ECMA
>>  >> is not
>>  >> going to do anything.

>>  >

>>  > Which highlights the impossibility having two normative standards
>>  > for the same
>>  > thing.

>>  > Dropping the references to ECMA is the only sensible way forward.
>>  >

>>  > Anders

>> 

>> If there is no reciprocal normative reference from some version of
>> ECMA 404
>>  with status at least equivalent to last call then I strongly agree.
>>  Drop the
>>  reference and go forward with the other fixes.

>> 

>>  The whole idea of having the normative reference to ECMA 404 was to
>>  emphasize
>>  that there is agreement from both sides that the two documents will
>>  always
>>  agree on what is JSON.  The current version of 7159bis states the
>>  IETF side of
>>  that agreement but there is nothing at all from the ECMA side.

>> 
>>  peter

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>>  json mailing list

>> json@ietf.org

>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

> 

> 

> 

> -- 

> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
>   https://keybase.io/timbray)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email