IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] What are we trying to do?

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Wed, 03 July 2013 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
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 7A80021F9C8E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 03:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 fARzW4KH3rlr for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 03:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B8321F9C21 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 03:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.28]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mgqx4-1UYPwU2j6u-00M203 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 12:43:58 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jul 2013 10:43:58 -0000
Received: from 178.115.249.85.wireless.dyn.drei.com (EHLO Vostro3500) [178.115.249.85] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 03 Jul 2013 12:43:58 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/vu5YnpT3vZ1o2xtqjxH/H0DxXyNKAIf1fgGv3vo 0K4B35Nwho8vY0
From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: json@ietf.org
References: <CAHBU6iv0wXYvAyasSE8Wga0K_sD_pKL6o-a-ca9yemhy3m6zzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iv0wXYvAyasSE8Wga0K_sD_pKL6o-a-ca9yemhy3m6zzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 12:43:53 +0200
Message-ID: <012f01ce77da$37d7f9c0$a787ed40$@lanthaler>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: Ac53qm5cglCPBnZWTFiwDtvoFmMNKAAL6FJA
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [Json] What are we trying to do?
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 10:44:05 -0000

On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:02 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> What the industry really needs is a document normatively describing
> JSON-as-best-practiced, with an RFC number.  It would say that senders
> MUST NOT do X and Y, and that receivers, upon encountering X OR Y,
> MUST DO Z.  Thus  other spec writers can say “Do what RFCXXXX says”
> and not have to resort to the sort of drafting pain that the people in
> Jose are experiencing right now in order to avoid attacks on
> cryptographically signed protocol elements by exploiting variation in
> dupe-key handling.

+1

> Is it the sense of the WG that such a document is within our mandate?

I hope so as it would be my preferred way forward.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email