IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> Mon, 09 January 2017 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <pfpschneider@gmail.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 A0043129D1F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:48:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EZ5yXynvR8Q3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x233.google.com (mail-pg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 516A11293EC for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 06:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 194so14835780pgd.2 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 06:38:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FjFhrfTApJFL5eIPABACTWrxoczSNAVF0e+ML2S8fIo=; b=NiZJSnIs6a4MFiFum4C8OA8XViuTcjConlHdc0GWaRksntvDXkq07nNFYYX6tC2nWc RCWkDN9HobdLJ9SQVyA5/2bXD+j/HieuqhM5xzYkJ3TQ9gKBlhk+ZgefRN2YQzbl4fZ7 bz4fnycMtn1K9mbUg9RjqCx6z33oWwlp/uJ9qbxe3XrVORJTv+oN+tOjEtrE7Hixl3cW m8dVAbBIvdXX9NYNrqPuPJaVSCj2goML79zAcqZzH2EXXjW9ThUmo6x4IwjHERk3yN2M PguRp7NDHm2NTip+xHNbD5nVx4gXoaU4M3iQ6XGwFM9OFRwa3sQ4arLRauBJ87+mXRer OddA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FjFhrfTApJFL5eIPABACTWrxoczSNAVF0e+ML2S8fIo=; b=goyhn3C44y/dl5vsrxelIHWq6F1+tt9oY2H6tj3vLFcSQQlESkv7gJ6oo298CGhx4e b2niZRe4x6dacxAi6JpQmto6lQ4i7JIEJCZRoEK8h+Ntr5fs/hLIh0t99se2ofZh+Act LNvEyYLhU+iXZnRI3DuHSkDV6z4DeFha79mFzH+VVJ9YhKtgZJD3C2RNHnUJI3LqnF2c 7U/Vk/Vmw8BgaEGN1peZ4vY0E8py2hIVaHXP39kWMaHS/yakizwR2tSGpfh1Nxdxh54C TjLMLZRVMPojxEV6KcEO33jLoXwphbWXJifJk+I548u9A7VxJMsXaH57d1ChNOIZbpxU p6KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ87uY4TsSxKiyWg0hdIk9gyNoQjw0aOpDgYzvdvsuHnMU/g85ZFnPWNbHlXKMltA==
X-Received: by 10.84.137.169 with SMTP id 38mr195007600pln.128.1483972723859; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 06:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([2602:306:32e8:c8c0:5e51:4fff:fefc:9d10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 29sm138782985pfo.58.2017.01.09.06.38.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Jan 2017 06:38:42 -0800 (PST)
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9ed27357-8114-e59a-b094-0f05fda174f7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 06:38:41 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ba0f9df3-028b-9d98-2a72-f9dd289e0056@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/eTd3b8tI-qdxp7cs7jYZNkEg2xk>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "json@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:48:35 -0000


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email