IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.com>
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 884A121F88C7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:24:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pB40-PHoZS28 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:23:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC66421F8A6F for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:23:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1573; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361312632; x=1362522232; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ahDDGcR9bYoKcumiOuZdm/xkvqWTyk4ZnedQ86pjW3I=; b=J8wOkpFQCxRzr5ANi0kT8Mi1lBb5McXwnr26RktQ8P+gXPpERfhj7/Do uhcZbe/O7mLX8RuHpnf3bbcTWK2Mqa/sy1GfFjlURvf4qKC7HyusDlVcg tSXO8hmlPpENIfjrYask67NpfIhb/w9zC3n6QrZK+VQ0Mru6iaLVHCtit 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAO75I1GtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABFwEKBDRZzgh8BAQEEAQEBawsSAQgOCgpLCyUCBA4FCIgKDLAlkCEEjU2BEDEHgl9hA4gwnlODB4FyNQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,697,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="178940938"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2013 22:23:51 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1JMNpGH006651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:23:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:23:50 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Thread-Topic: [Json] [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF
Thread-Index: AQHODhKwsPxTte9Ry0KhDmvQvHsA3piCCRiA//+eqLD///s2AIAAd14AgAAMtgD//4uegA==
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:23:49 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F897E36@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iurwyeUcQ0pbHHAUS-XTxmGNC=tKB4Y1en3d+L4G=r_sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <758524F6843CCB46B916FEE8073B3D00@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:24:00 -0000

And reading your mail more carefully, I thought "sign" here meant +/-,
which is why that other part of this thread is down in the weeds.

On 2/19/13 3:20 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

>Oops, I was wrong, NaN & INF aren¹t in JSON.  D¹oh.  -T
>
>On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Tim Bray
><tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
>re draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form:
>Looks sensible. One gripe:  Why can¹t you sign NaN and INF?  They do in
>fact  occur in the field, and it¹s not as though a noncanonical
>representation is possible.
>
>
>-T (who still hasn¹t decided if this is actually a good idea)
>
>
>
>On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
><jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>On 2/19/13 1:47 PM, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm strongly against canonicalization.  The XML canonicalization
>>experience was horrible and resulted in more interop bugs than any other
>>aspect of XML DSIG, XML ENC, etc.  Let's not repeat the mistakes of our
>>elders. ;-)
>>
>>I also haven't seen a clear use case that canonicalization solves that
>>can't be more easily solved another way.
>
>
>I somewhat agree, but have you at least read
>draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form?  It's pretty straightforward, and
>nowhere near as scary as xmlenc.
>
>--
>Joe Hildebrand
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>json mailing list
>json@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email