IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Mon, 19 October 2015 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.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 6E1111A017D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 V_7UY9Ze_cM7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (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 571381A01A8 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so47731488igb.0 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DHlgVyWoG95dUvQmJCEJdBD3Nt7cOiFgEf6IDgiV3pg=; b=GUEmC6PS2K6mOhu508hardvos1HdLiA9jn9JN+UD8pNaAwNejQUyhwr8DHyPyHx5if bace1S9JRl35y9Qh9XoqpDrFJU8ux5bmwq1bX+U4Z2CLR0+qrS7PTHsirNfABeARm3D7 fH1KZ/TsfRgLA2sfaNcCWTf9/1hKpX0pHy5FPbR+B/0q69WVAM7trRtApZ44uG1lte0U 0tLZiJLSnmQAXta9K87dpLm+HkPjqm5tlOWl6ORvKT8NHl8sgZaKsIq6ivQdZ9XrIYMJ n3lDcKB+YMRIxBGxSyxbQNMw+82gEJfWdcipmp21s+RIteYQVXdVlVSheeODV/wqDehy Azew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.117.97 with SMTP id kd1mr16372146igb.42.1445224416130; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.8.17 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iuH_oJHpFarFU4HsmT4nPmNCeGPmGz5J-QpS4T5qiTkwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DB74C466-D542-42D6-95B0-690A564435A9@cisco.com> <CAC4RtVD3cKThDTr_eS-QCUhKqZkMS0y+nPS5HxCk3f1RQ7VyJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iv_w_O95Nq-bU1z2GOKgouuGrMbZP4Uwio25pPtFCc3UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+==5_mstrgHEd7bUGzSo85Er9VR_zEaJ+gh-O+zSpK=w@mail.gmail.com> <88A80A45-E673-4D0A-995B-3872874C23AE@cisco.com> <CALaySJJ01gEoHqZ4ehVHzv8mqD1CXKV3Ave3yQPrgrAGe4yckg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuxBvn3ug9LwcK9gvrQDLr1uz=3NCrcrZaejF2iUwiLVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SzuxZrCJ+Gfc9LkKX88SetAOTp3GpxpxVF1CmmT3j5MoQ@mail.gmail.com> <56241BFE.5080609@tzi.org> <CAHBU6iuH_oJHpFarFU4HsmT4nPmNCeGPmGz5J-QpS4T5qiTkwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:13:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwQSV6hd0FpoOi04pEKtjcszbVkrmxcqiM9NcRJ3xg0BQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01183c70f1bdf205226c87a2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/kAGlrjQDQNgCr-mki1TYO0sUerY>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis
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: <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, 19 Oct 2015 03:13:51 -0000

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Carsten. My belief is that ECMA404 meet neither of those criteria.
>
> I also believe, based on prior conversation, that the goal of this WG has
> nothing to do with with changing the meaning of RFC7159, but rather is
> aimed at “standards harmonization”. While I’m unconvinced of the benefits,
> if there’s IETF consensus behind such harmonization, I wouldn’t stand in
> the way.  But I would hope that there’s a better way to achieve it than
> with a flagrantly bogus normative reference.  And I’ve suggested a couple.
>

ECMA404 should be a normative reference.

- Rob






>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>> >>  “Normative Reference” has a very specific meaning, and that meaning
>> > clearly does not apply in this case.
>> >
>> > That conclusion is not clear to me. Can you explain?
>>
>> I'll leave explaining the conclusion to Tim, but here is the premise:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html
>>
>> In particular: "Normative references specify documents that must be read
>> to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose
>> technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work."
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email