Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 4651821F8686 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:43:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 hkqsG5+FtC2g for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:43:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7390E21F863F for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:43:22 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1KHhLxR029095 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:43:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com [10.116.132.56]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1KHhLXw026860; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:43:21 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:43:21 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4C9AB1F8-647E-4352-9827-FB9DA4F828FC@cisco.com>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
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 17:43:24 -0000

I don't hink doing anything is the proper course.  At *minimum* clean up of 4627 and moving it to Standards-Track is needed IMO.

--G

On Feb 20, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> My proposal is: do nothing.
> 
> I use JSON for protocol design and work all the time, and have not observed any interop problems in the wild which originate at the JSON parson or construction level.  I give the incoming text to the library and it Just Works or reliably reports a syntax botch.  I give my data structures to the JSON serializer and cheerfully send off whatever comes out. I read specs and build clients and servers and, when things break, it’s because I’m stupidly using a bogus name or value in some field, not because of the serialization.
> 
> I suggest that there is not a problem here that needs the investment of precious IETF time.
> 
>  -T
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json