Re: [Json] Proposed Wording for New WG Charter

It also needs some evidence that there’s actually a real-world need, and
that this isn’t just another solution in search of a problem.  I haven’t
seen any such evidence yet.

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2014-03-18 16:30, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 2014-03-18 16:14, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 2014-03-17 23:17, Matt Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings again.  We earlier asked a couple of questions to gauge what
>>>>>> the new proposed WG charter ought to contain.  That feedback has been
>>>>>> valuable, but has drilled into implementation specifics before a new
>>>>>> charter was actually agreed on!  We have been chastised by our AD
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> this, and for good reason.  We think we already have enough input from
>>>>>> the London meeting and the list over the past few days to make the
>>>>>> following proposal for a new charter:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What happened to the proposal to add James Snell's json-merge draft to
>>>>> the list of WG items?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't remember that discussion. draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch
>>>> should still be part of AppsAWG; it just needs someone to take over the
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> --Paul Hoffman
>>>>
>>>
>>> We talked about that after the WG meeting, didn't we?
>>>
>>
>> Errrr, maybe? Your recollection may be better than mine.
>>
>> Having said that, I'm not sure if this draft needs to move from AppsAWG:
>> it just needs an author to finish the draft.
>>
>
> ...and it needs review from people using JSON in protocols -- I *think*
> this is more likely to happen if if moves over to the JSON WG...
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>