[Json] The London meeting

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 09 March 2014 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233071A0268 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 08:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 5L0hjaAeljNT for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 08:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554DF1A0237 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 08:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hq11so6269397vcb.28 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=uVwG6BavoyG8Yd9xlIMEFIQa3cEAe5FMZpz8oGIs+Pw=; b=YB4Vei5jqyQ1eUft1UxM3tG/LLz0CMsj4EOFnq9241XuBEjx9V+N7dHvFv7FKxmmS2 wZz43bvF2r9ElMorlm/jyQiJaRlDddi+KnZJtUoSd4D8Y8scLTAFDup3rEdOtGKUkpSp vwDrra7+1jtF8xOkfycJTDE7gQ1fhjnE7R3tgA6H1VE50rzZXofC+8E5/aK6vVtraL0W k2AGz5NNo9GhJIfKnkq6YmkkdUGdbbc7VSxF0bpjKs1wJ4/wZQtR8oHnL7XE7K4LXE4T Rk7fW3tULZlTyXJtZJxZrWRpbR00qmq7zWrhVtSBZJu3XoWYtSYQRwBeWlx7ph7Nc7pX ocoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxLJXkwuZ500NcudY499Q2+z6I7nMza/do5Hycz1rxAql3YAsNhIMiuRkdxWtszzH2e3O9
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.133.15 with SMTP id oy15mr18406603veb.19.1394379455001; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 08:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Mar 2014 08:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 08:37:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isSe2pBmK4CH9ugrEwiVNSOxf8P2ezsq+YLgCRgonORJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d9f8219212904f42e4400
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/jjtQS1KZNn0gF4q5cBbee79uJZI
Subject: [Json] The London meeting
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:37:42 -0000

I was sort of hoping the chairs would take the sense of the WG as to
whether we should proceed with a re-chartering based on I-JSON + maybe
nomenclature.  There was lots of discussion on the bits of I-JSON that need
discussion, but very little on “is this worth specifying?”

To our chairs: Your sense of this issue?