Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62451A0404 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:41:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 EzsTE5NILWM2 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com (mail-ve0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523FF1A03BC for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id db12so7145572veb.24 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=7PhxcVX5Ehu7ofRzV/jW8LIyIpWWPAo4AO0gKOe142M=; b=MxZ+BgF95AxxYHae3d0os7Eww+48lsw0p+ZTWTlh9WHX86trOEkMDELBli5dKVtvXZ FuuqG9mVFH/p7mJbvxP4e5f43n/uCRMXDYwHIMkPEkWfUU7bHjdo7j3ia0+0Q2sLAZ4N Hxx+EAaIfWtIERVg1vziZL47tNHNSeI3pwbhCiFfFEd0WCxmk5J5cjYHI3KaOj+pkI7j HQWRmRSielLOF0wUQnGyvRBGy/x1NfYj05AslICVFqZlHvlvZGRtybPQ8hTpBgOHMOGA TV55yYSBPHZ3Rt8T+k/GyMESjM/LYuFc0+gTSyc5mJnEVZ4c6fP+MOg9MYH2lKGlIFFZ U6sg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldpAg4M/2aGuZTCCM4paF4X/TKZAf7l+XNkMtrxKyvanMAxks72QLnoKcw2AeMSDF2SveG X-Received: by 10.220.250.203 with SMTP id mp11mr25331659vcb.2.1395157260894; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:40:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32] In-Reply-To: <5328687D.9050509@gmx.de> References: <53277484.70305@cisco.com> <5327F05E.7060905@gmx.de> <532864FC.8040700@gmx.de> <5328687D.9050509@gmx.de> From: Tim Bray Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:40:39 -0700 Message-ID: To: Julian Reschke Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0502f11aa004f4e35c45 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/p0WZ_61JdjU0JL2cMbGMT1310Nk Cc: Paul Hoffman , IETF JSON WG Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed Wording for New WG Charter X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:41:12 -0000 --089e013d0502f11aa004f4e35c45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It also needs some evidence that there=E2=80=99s actually a real-world need= , and that this isn=E2=80=99t just another solution in search of a problem. I ha= ven=E2=80=99t seen any such evidence yet. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Julian Reschke wrot= e: > On 2014-03-18 16:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> On Mar 18, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Julian Reschke >> wrote: >> >> On 2014-03-18 16:14, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 18, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Julian Reschke >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2014-03-17 23:17, Matt Miller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Greetings again. We earlier asked a couple of questions to gauge wh= at >>>>>> the new proposed WG charter ought to contain. That feedback has bee= n >>>>>> 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 fr= om >>>>>> 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 t= o >>>>> 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 th= e >>>> 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 > --089e013d0502f11aa004f4e35c45 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It = also needs some evidence that there=E2=80=99s actually a real-world need, a= nd that this isn=E2=80=99t just another solution in search of a problem. = =C2=A0I haven=E2=80=99t seen any such evidence yet.


On Tue,= Mar 18, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>= ; wrote:
On 2= 014-03-18 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. =C2=A0We earlier asked a couple of questions to gauge what=
the new proposed WG charter ought to contain. =C2=A0That feedback has been<= br> valuable, but has drilled into implementation specifics before a new
charter was actually agreed on! =C2=A0We have been chastised by our AD abou= t
this, and for good reason. =C2=A0We 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 t= he 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* thi= s is more likely to happen if if moves over to the JSON WG...



_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--089e013d0502f11aa004f4e35c45--