Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 16:03 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 CC7F1129CF9 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:03:11 -0800 (PST)
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 eEagoUB6i58l for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x242.google.com (mail-qt0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::242]) (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 8A8F5129CFA for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x242.google.com with SMTP id n13so12769212qtc.0 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:03:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9kpPqy8XJJcP4oQ4VnGFU/24TdTCebzG9wCv2smZbdk=; b=TMFXqdJNnc7HVdxma37Hjg7ZPVsgel8He4GAJgjCwmtt9qoEkSm01KIswaab6b9zr3 05H8AlGTHwxeox/phUhAzFPVrxVi9MoBCvxocRvbVZvPgBJ5cyS9Jplz5k8jEA4azEo3 /35kvq6yhV9jFg8k4cHbSzAT/gnwyiJDmWbqaTiteXPSV5h2GvMMFAXLE9y33nlqbK49 HcduHRH2AsWmQnE0r0EKMnfNd11uGEN2X5xLWWwTOjLKcnw4RVNY7TOpiISfJDaaFFXc GOH0x57WgP+XgKwQL+65faS8XTZvI+5jaQpXPY6Msdt3tFgLiCYSep2e0oRq0lUkdau0 CWDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9kpPqy8XJJcP4oQ4VnGFU/24TdTCebzG9wCv2smZbdk=; b=nyZyejLDhidn2pBM95mnc7nrrEGLN5pSauuc24tHkkyR7RtdJdt2md/m22JnTbjzsv Cl3+5/wgU3ardPPpqThkvVtB34NMJKaWQt1AYEtEAoQF7AM3MIhsSa+5M/P4KgL2oC/w yhJzAvAVTVV53T2u0CpftNaHLcEpt0bUblWw0TE+mGY/SCagZ4Z7yG8P+Y1dEua/zCG5 NLG3JAo0smnxLs1nX1bTLce9w/y9GzsU8l3OElP5iQdoEMLQw7d6kWHwNEqo4sP4aK4f U/vKUD8/q0PjT4eqSv/lOb2FEg9WXmDWnXABPFmhSvGuTuJHbI4ivtzWsZAFilxmWxbw cyHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJuOVyCR3qx/FOVcUJI6NRagAu7dMpPlEdQWz//ClrXT/UP4XrNRm5+piVEo16Fkw==
X-Received: by 10.200.48.235 with SMTP id w40mr7524472qta.72.1484150589613; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([199.4.160.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a69sm4336608qkj.38.2017.01.11.08.03.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:03:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
References: <7f687476-a694-0f7d-2e2f-84d23a9ea430@gmx.de> <78D16356-4962-445D-A513-44E432F6C87F@fastmail.fm> <c25e8737-a6fb-031d-75b1-3112e12c0d8e@gmail.com> <6BC16581-9781-4704-B763-401EF9C2142C@fastmail.fm> <ba0f9df3-028b-9d98-2a72-f9dd289e0056@gmail.com> <9ed27357-8114-e59a-b094-0f05fda174f7@gmail.com> <CAHBU6is8a7B88JpdzWBeKsQx59f=+xEBspdOA55Vsc-PpRof9g@mail.gmail.com> <1484040615.3549806.842843153.32106FE4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <11AB0416-C3FB-4211-9667-899D0665F87B@vpnc.org> <78dc32a2-4556-f222-26bf-60409b71e1ed@gmx.de> <a25eba5d-691a-a33a-582b-10d4b0e54157@gmail.com> <3E10B159-1E5E-490F-87FE-D5CBC6EEAE1E@fastmail.fm>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96fdac72-6dde-dc83-533e-4502b606b76c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:03:05 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3E10B159-1E5E-490F-87FE-D5CBC6EEAE1E@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/nHMrvclJ4fdW1N9NU5yL1aRg0FI>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis
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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:03:12 -0000


On 01/11/2017 02:39 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 
>> On 10 Jan 2017, at 16:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/10/2017 08:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 2017-01-10 17:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Jan 2017, at 1:30, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, at 08:04 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m assuming that in the near future there will be a note from the
>>>>>> IESG to ietf@ mailing list advising us that they will be taking this
>>>>>> matter up?
>>>>> My understanding is that the action will be taken around RFC publication
>>>>> time. So either the ECMA document going to have a similar note to what
>>>>> is in 7159bis, or the RFC will be published without the current note.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So can we please get the document over this finish line?
>>>>
>>>> Can you as AD please tell us the steps that are needed to do that?
>>>
>>> As a first step, address feedback and produce a new draft?
>>>
>>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>> And get at least a draft version of what ECMA is going to say?
> 
> Based on earlier discussions with ECMA they need to know the RFC number to reference. After that they say that they can move quite fast on adding the note.

Isn't the number 7159bis?  Why can't ECMA go ahead using this number?

peter