Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF 100

Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 11 December 2017 05:46 UTC

To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, json@ietf.org
Cc: jsonbis-chairs@ietf.org
References: <150669032129.14118.1441258768913961205.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <14b239c8-e17c-0ca2-561b-83b2bbd57516@gmx.de> <0a167b10-bb3b-7bac-2906-63c459230645@isode.com> <e986c580-b6df-3736-ebed-4b06d761853c@gmx.de> <1510238425.3520771.1167030728.53A2E4C7@webmail.messagingengine.com> <a5e7b81b-0596-26b5-48cb-22fde33825e8@gmx.de> <26654843-a256-dcd4-8f4b-3910517eb3e9@gmail.com>
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
Message-ID: <76679ff4-60f2-5744-f294-39d4029e683f@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:46:39 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <26654843-a256-dcd4-8f4b-3910517eb3e9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: it.aoyama.ac.jp does not designate permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2017 05:46:42.0455 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e1aee90b-df77-4e5c-f80a-08d5405a8ed8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OS2PR01MB0251
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/iSLM2T6IOkEq4wq5wJOq3-ucXGs>
Subject: Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF 100
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 11 Dec 2017 05:46:51 -0000

On 2017/12/10 04:19, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 09:00 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> FWIW:
>> <https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm> is
>> the new version.
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
> 
>>From that document:
> 
> A definition of the JSON syntax was subsequently published as IETF RFC 4627
> in July 2006. ECMA-262, Fifth Edition (2009) included a normative
> specification of the JSON grammar.  This specification, ECMA-404, replaces
> those earlier definitions of the JSON syntax.  Concurrently, the IETF
> published RFC 7158/7159 and in 2017 RFC 8259 as updates to RFC 4627. The
> JSON syntax specified by this specification and by RFC 8259 are intended to
> be identical.
> 
> 
> Not exactly what I was hoping for, but at least 8259 is listed as a normative
> reference.

There is also this text, in Section 3 (Normative References):

 >>>>>>>>
Bray, T., Ed. "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange 
Format", RFC 8259.

This specification and [RFC 8259] both provide specifications of the 
JSON grammar but do so using different formalisms. The intent is that 
both specifications define the same syntactic language. If a difference 
is found between them, Ecma International and the IETF will work 
together to update both documents. If an error is found with either 
document, the other should be examined to see if it has a similar error, 
and fixed if possible. If either document is changed in the future, Ecma 
International and the IETF will work together to ensure that the two 
documents stay aligned through the change. RFC 8259, also defines 
various semantic restrictions on the use of the JSON syntax. Those 
restrictions are not normative for this specification.
 >>>>>>>>

I think that this is quite precise and adequate. The only thing I'd fix 
is the comma just after "RFC 8259" in the last sentence.

I'm personally quite satisfied with this, and would like to thank 
everybody involved for their hard work in coordinating this behind the 
scenes.

Regards,   Martin.

[Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF 100 IETF Meeting Session Request Tool
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Julian Reschke
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Alexey Melnikov
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Julian Reschke
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Alexey Melnikov
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Matthew A. Miller
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Julian Reschke
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Carsten Bormann
Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF… Martin J. Dürst