Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 20 February 2013 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 0F8F221F88CF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:20:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G+RZDYsNYSZR for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3F421F88B9 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KGK8iL086894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:20:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxNLJ8kqsMUjiMMhx9w-quUkqEbpPjMF5fF-02jyUNPrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:20:08 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <734F6B55-2AA7-44A6-A636-7221C8518479@vpnc.org>
References: <CAChr6SxNLJ8kqsMUjiMMhx9w-quUkqEbpPjMF5fF-02jyUNPrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:20:14 -0000

On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:47 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> My suggestion is for the WG to target this use case only, and to treat
> the JSON processing rules in ECMAScript 5, Section 15.12 (The JSON
> Object) as the baseline for rules regarding encoding and decoding,
> rather than RFC4627.

It feels weird to be agreeing with Rob so early in the discusson, but I agree on both parts.

- Charter 4627bis *and nothing else*, so that the 4627bis work is done without distraction. It is really clear that canonicalization and schema/description have the *high* potential for distraction.

- Say that the base for that one charter item is RFC 4627 *and* ECMAScript 5, which seems to be widely-deployed.

- Say that the WG is likely to recharter while 4627bis is under review by the IESG to discuss schema/description.

- Given the recent consensus, don't mention canonicalization in the charter at all unless another WG or SDO has specifically asked us to work on it.

--Paul Hoffman