IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 10 January 2017 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 C783A129B31 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:04:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 OJNqrfNNbG-t for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79B791294C8 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:04:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 11so68032764qkl.3 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:04:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NXYk+9XgqDrlGnZCSt/YhTjBRoLe4Y1vj3/r9zDsI+Q=; b=Op2j9H2tsWOfupFc3hRyIGIguf/HG7DHxkSfVY6ZafoBWqdREqZdMKqHwNRvKUDN1I Fc7Pv4fAG2+saNVN4nvjKwxgDyLAE3gjh9HRyI6GUCXGrZ02ZtaNboaw916o2ZJ6qgJX vSFU3XLTi+coGHLUnpKgSilfE/TD/iSpILrsoaVHHfeb2hOZQAfokQubbRkTecqpxzp3 bZ8zCJhU3TQHRGHG1iN2BqBy+W7ggV7Z5M7cnalFz9P52Qvx0QGtKrkqRa/QYah4Wo0O WQkEwFq9LpepEd3uBx7LSJ8rg203opk3Pgoq+VAfuVfPztB5m36FKIW+Jsyqx3GGtR8Y qKDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NXYk+9XgqDrlGnZCSt/YhTjBRoLe4Y1vj3/r9zDsI+Q=; b=hHXxgyM9RXXUC7WWAxuoG6uRtEh64vVToKAeIIGsC05yO098Yxxs9x8yNMcg1cocP3 J2pvDQuVADJzSmB3DFPCFiGs2l5ain1BzOc0JmofmCOfQlk3F60Gdm12z1WmXe44/lUe KFphWSgjd0QtzxLIDv17V0uHzcO9bOhiGDx1b8h8lVnVacy9PyiJcJSXu+nT++y7ZcoR hsETCoXWA/qfROFS1GuS7zkq0ccdpePbn8ALhAWWT1l/1AlLZ6WJLU4qZyZNDQiw8feY rEWo66ms9fucsvRS1SLkNa6y+/T52KVthGfu3OJvN1WcqH74hlT2GCxP4mfceGe6aiSb Vjaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKkipLfP/zno9NgDyTGap9oCTt/JmVpZ2k9UEyEoinUlpkgwFmGMnGsCHRDc8xBfYi6nanpMdsT/N9uIQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.6.129 with SMTP id 123mr1540932qkg.167.1484035479619; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:04:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.35.136 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:04:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [24.86.134.32]
In-Reply-To: <9ed27357-8114-e59a-b094-0f05fda174f7@gmail.com>
References: <7f687476-a694-0f7d-2e2f-84d23a9ea430@gmx.de> <78D16356-4962-445D-A513-44E432F6C87F@fastmail.fm> <c25e8737-a6fb-031d-75b1-3112e12c0d8e@gmail.com> <6BC16581-9781-4704-B763-401EF9C2142C@fastmail.fm> <ba0f9df3-028b-9d98-2a72-f9dd289e0056@gmail.com> <9ed27357-8114-e59a-b094-0f05fda174f7@gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:04:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6is8a7B88JpdzWBeKsQx59f=+xEBspdOA55Vsc-PpRof9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c8c629917b30545b8efd4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/qLXcofwCmbYB2686oCYUqA9Wt8Y>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Status of 7159bis
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:04:45 -0000

I’m assuming that in the near future there will be a note from the IESG to
ietf@ mailing list advising us that they will be taking this matter up?

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 01/09/2017 02:06 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> > On 2017-01-09 10:59, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8 Jan 2017, at 19:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
> pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 01/08/2017 12:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> >>>> Hi Julian,
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7 Jan 2017, at 15:35, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi there,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just noticed that the document went to state "Publication
> Requested"
> >>>>> early December, with no notification of the working group, and (IMHO)
> >>>>> some of the few feedback that the document received during WG LC
> being
> >>>>> ignored (such as
> >>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg03945.html>
> and
> >>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg03978.html>).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's going on here?
> >>>>
> >>>> I moved it to the Publication Requested state in datatracker in order
> to
> >>>> get the document done and get the WG closed. Negotiations with the WG
> >>>> chair and document editor are ongoing. WGLC comments will be handled
> (or
> >>>> at least replied to).
> >>>>
> >>>> Best Regards,
> >>>> Alexey
> >>>
> >>> Progress on this document was waiting for progress on ECMA 404.  I
> don't see
> >>> that anything has happened with ECMA 404, so this document can't
> progress.
> >>
> >> It is quite the opposite: If the document doesn't progress, ECMA is not
> >> going to do anything.
> >
> > Which highlights the impossibility having two normative standards for
> the same
> > thing.
> > Dropping the references to ECMA is the only sensible way forward.
> >
> > Anders
>
> If there is no reciprocal normative reference from some version of ECMA 404
> with status at least equivalent to last call then I strongly agree.  Drop
> the
> reference and go forward with the other fixes.
>
> The whole idea of having the normative reference to ECMA 404 was to
> emphasize
> that there is agreement from both sides that the two documents will always
> agree on what is JSON.  The current version of 7159bis states the IETF
> side of
> that agreement but there is nothing at all from the ECMA side.
>
> peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>



-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email