Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"

Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <petejson@codalogic.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 4C5FF128DF6 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 24NUgpFp9ziq for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsa-online.com (lvps217-199-162-192.vps.webfusion.co.uk [217.199.162.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 027FE127097 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21096 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2017 22:01:27 +0000
Received: from host109-157-157-172.range109-157.btcentralplus.com (HELO ?192.168.1.72?) (109.157.157.172) by lvps217-199-162-217.vps.webfusion.co.uk with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 23 Mar 2017 22:01:27 +0000
To: "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>
References: <1fb5849e-8dbf-835d-65b7-2403686248f9@outer-planes.net> <0E32A94D-CE12-4F52-9ED6-8743C49751B4@vpnc.org> <4d2f0fb3-a729-0c17-2394-bc1e005dd612@gmx.de> <d09f9a59-2411-45a0-470c-ea95072fe4fd@outer-planes.net> <dad91b19-e774-e239-36d2-9d086cca8e0d@gmx.de> <ac432615-ee84-3cdf-6b37-480626bd18c1@gmx.de> <804f9930-26a5-a565-0607-452b386cfeb5@outer-planes.net> <D89BCFAA-B81F-4EEB-8B3A-180BAAB9D16C@att.com> <e69d7c21-85cb-45f4-c0c2-34c624e63049@outer-planes.net> <14252631-AD76-4537-89BF-6368F4A8CDF4@att.com> <7e6af21f-16ea-a3bc-9c01-595ae8acebba@gmx.de> <05100401-88D4-4158-A3FF-3EF144D85449@att.com> <CAD2gp_T0bfpnsCA_t4BAMtEhr7p8JkZggjnY4F+m9-M2hWLfmw@mail.gmail.com> <1e94516c-9c82-8b0e-0d2d-7dbaa83b21bd@outer-planes.net>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
From: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
Message-ID: <06527534-3098-a20c-31ca-0e97fd336c5d@codalogic.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:08:45 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1e94516c-9c82-8b0e-0d2d-7dbaa83b21bd@outer-planes.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/oWzZCjtEc7LV25iecIwFUi1i_Yg>
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:08:52 -0000

On 23/03/2017 21:37, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> Our sponsoring AD and I have been discussing this option.  Alexey is
> willing to go through another IETF last call if we can get consensus.
>
> To start, to what degree is UTF-8 encouraged?
>
> 0) don't encourage UTF-8 more than already is
> 1) SHOULD encode as UTF-8 for all usages
> 2) SHOULD encode as UTF-8 where the media type is 'application/json'
> 3) MUST encode as UTF-8 where the media type is 'application/json'
> 4) other -- please specify

(3) is where I'd like to be and where I believe most implementations are 
based on list discussion.  This would seem to align the bis RFC with 
what's deployed, which seems the best approach for interoperability.

Also (1) for when not 'application/json' media type.

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd