Re: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

On 10/18/2015 08:13 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com
> <mailto: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

Please explain your reasoning behind this.  Do you believe that ECMA404 meets
the technical requirements for being a normative reference for RFC7159bis?

peter

>     On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:json@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
> 
> 