IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> Tue, 19 July 2016 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <pfpschneider@gmail.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 B0B3E1288B8; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FTrdtr9yIPom; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (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 17F14127077; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 38so26105066iol.0; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YlOE/EZs1Y6iDfOzgszr+nfEiRy3PmOErCjgnVLxP/0=; b=oL5jyOH9l36/+2Z1ulvr3k1C1iHSgZREL7rwmHwb872rZRcx+uL5tUvyFtJWjBBB1R MsGpWEh2Nii3hykEm/2/K4iG1pHZDY3ElFfFIXeGGvVS/x15wdNFEJPjBze3dDYPp3dV U/tFc6e5Z+DeqtJ2ptk7nUS1N7v1MRgY0WOJda5L39IZFuu7ujF6mSPD5qO908k4zhOW uhmwgewOdM4kTDE8/mHGWR2XsvdMF1ztpjCWGHmWIPW3bQWBCHY8y6qwclwDxqew/wSc YwYnhoB66xspE6D2Xc42gdj6AqZ73ouBqdaNmXGpIQ86ijVfQGm/TGfjUH1lJpG+gLl1 ZTBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YlOE/EZs1Y6iDfOzgszr+nfEiRy3PmOErCjgnVLxP/0=; b=Itgi8UvUbswCbV4Qt7DgoxnEh2O9P7x0zc1JpQubotp/+zWOruYKWzV+wjvGqKxzpU t4stzJmc3a576YlY6y8STB4kukyqvaeLvp07PC1vZlG5J0GIx9PIcnw+Oo+hrqB5YUXF ninoWpPuuNifjZMXbsrV+nUCLikwzDeeHRaRuuTm/+NN1RpGqYJuI/1N/61GN8X8ndIC bKwVj8IhRtF5OFIkHc4Eb9UwjcBcG2y1jD0yFuVnMEM+bGx7GnlI1w3+j13Yhym/7ej8 m7EiKFjOqt9QS/RDdcSrOlnLQrWVoE/QWFpNJpEGpV/VZNkdI7QhXR0Giiz2vIjJy+dm 5nPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK6+UuhCZP7ivye6OxLZ65kZo5Z/uUS8wQi/SwPgzs6IOFqmPyNUABWzUwpEyN2EQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.16.228 with SMTP id 97mr46178310ioq.98.1468951087967; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([199.4.160.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d71sm10457161ioj.33.2016.07.19.10.58.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
References: <CDD4C92E-863F-40FE-8D58-D764C9533FAA@cisco.com> <1e137fbf-6d67-d9b4-acbf-b53291c7bd40@gmail.com> <1620D9D0-1C06-46A7-AA46-267C41F261DA@cisco.com>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68f9d71b-deb6-f87c-5169-204135c80d28@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:04 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1620D9D0-1C06-46A7-AA46-267C41F261DA@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/mMo9m5wj8Co3yIQX9RZ_IaLPL7k>
Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 17:58:11 -0000

On 07/19/2016 02:05 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 2016, at 15:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that ECMA 404 is about to undergo a change, and this
>> change is important to the changes in rfc7159bis.  If this is the case, then I
>> believe that rfc7159bis should not have gone to last call, as one of the
>> document's normative references is in flux and there is no pointer in the
>> document to even a draft of the new version of the normative document.
>>
>> Ideally rfc7159bis should not go to last call until there is the equivalent of
>> a last call version of the revised ECMA 404.
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
> 
> The only change planned for ECMA-404 is to reference rfc7159bis by its stable number.  One of them needs to go first; in this case that is rfc7159bis.
> 
> 
> --
> - m&m

The only change from what?  The only change from the version of ECMA-404
referenced in draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02?  That document, available at
www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-404.pdf, doesn't
mention rfc7159bis at all.  If there is a draft version of a revised ECMA-404
that only needs a pointer updated, then that version needs to be made
available so that reviewers of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 can determine
whether this document is suitable for normative use in rfc7159bis.

As far as can be determined from draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 there has
been no work on ECMA-404 since October 2013.  It thus appears that all the
changes in rfc7159bis will have to be made and approved before any changes to
ECMA-404 have even been drafted.

peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email