Re: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@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 DB80821F8D43 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TU-UkOeUZ2Ja for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4FA21F8D5B for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4703; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363284837; x=1364494437; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=I4s2fY7+x87HDfAN130gz8CtBWsE7LmZFviADxA7LWc=; b=UG35shrtcXaV+QPSWU1IUNBGNpCaeWbiU3zPbgBTCct6I1VV8GcfjdQX sF5AqdsCFCJJmwKFlfwueRTJ7dMF8RqeKDKlvfgvUTPttcAsByE/TwVZl lInaDHld82xl3Rr8PwX+iiKw6NDzNrZ0RnKqjInYDUNc33dMng7+ywTCm 8=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 2283
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAN8SQlGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABDxQKBZRZ0gisBAQEDAXkFCwIBCCIkAjAlAgQOBQgGiAAGDMF/jmUxB4JfYQOPNoEohxmPY4MKgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,846,1355097600"; d="p7s'?scan'208"; a="187589362"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2013 18:13:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2EIDq4X003744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:13:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.203]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:13:51 -0500
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes
Thread-Index: AQHOIM17pr4TrCMcfEGRcdN2h7OQ9Zil0ZEA
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:13:51 +0000
Message-ID: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411516FB01@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com>
References: <5379220D-65A8-4D5B-9502-43DB71417364@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5379220D-65A8-4D5B-9502-43DB71417364@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.151.37]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EBE37366-FE77-43B1-9F54-C487B9188DCB"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:13:59 -0000

On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> Greetings again. I have made the following change in the proposed charter (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON):
> 
> Any changes that break compatibility with existing
> implementations will need to have very strong justification and broad
> support, and will have to be documented in the new RFC.
> 
> ==>
> 
> It is acknowledged that there are differences between RFC 4627 and the
> ECMAScript specification in the rules for parsing JSON. Any changes that
> break compatibility with existing implementations of either RFC 4627 or
> the ECMAScript specification will need to have very strong justification
> and broad support. All differences between RFC 4627 or the current
> ECMAScript specification will be documented in the new RFC. This
> documentation will include both the WG consensus for the rationale of the
> changes and the expected impact of the changes.
> 
> Does anyone have a problem with this change?
> 

Looks accurate to me.


- m&m

Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
Cisco Systems, Inc.