IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@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 038C421F8F10 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:40:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, 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 WKarCs+EhKSH for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:40:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1564E21F8688 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:40:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1557; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361479226; x=1362688826; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=tx26CsPzCMgZET34AOf2R+7Cp4fSx2RT0paO+va7JcE=; b=gRRqGCvVA3tkSCjaMVySwUDBf2Jb9jjFqSz7EGglnAOankmSImrZE9HB 80ePoalq5n/mm4xLtQ2aCbES7p1+WmMUoRZeJ0vR+2p42btLIo+AFXl5d pxRMIg9H2AmDhlxuJVOpo1SVXoLDB/vNbbeTA8pXS+105GUvXky1jeMwz M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFADKFJlGtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFwQyBBRZzgh8BAQEEAQEBNzQdAQgYChQxBgslAgQBEgiHeAMPDLVSDYk3BIw3giY4gl9hA5RajSWFFYMHgic
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,711,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="179782648"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Feb 2013 20:40:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1LKePdR009013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:40:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([173.37.183.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:40:25 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items
Thread-Index: AQHOD5RjTUz37iGayUSEf11jvGkoDJiDigUAgAAJN4CAAAE8AP//jVSAgAB4awCAAEwcgIAAAmQAgAAtKoCAAAN/AIAAEQOAgAByZACAAHgUgP//oo8A
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:40:24 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89E036@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC5143B4-86A8-463C-B45A-3932C9445958@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9340218280D72F4E9FC930B5FD9EB362@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 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: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:40:27 -0000

Fine, but I'm more interested in an existence proof at this point than the
actual language.

On 2/21/13 12:14 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
><jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/13 10:15 PM, "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> There is a lack of interoperability, and this issue is one of the
>>>smaller
>>> points. The larger point is that the JS implementations (and many
>>>smaller
>>> ones) have no incentive to change their behavior, and what they do is
>>> reasonable. Let's just
>>> do that.
>> 
>> How about text like this for section 2.2:
>
>Wrong thread. This thread is for "only product a best practices guide".
>
>I bring this up because there is a huge difference between:
>- Changing the requirements in the format specification
>- Adding new processing rules, but allowing bad-idea data, in the format
>document
>- Not touching the format specification and creating a best practices
>guide
>
>Further, as we have discovered in many other areas of the IETF, there is
>a huge difference between:
>- A format specification that is unclear on how to process illegal input
>- A format specification that says processors must reject illegal input
>- A format specification that says how processors handle
>legal-but-bad-idea input
>
>--Paul Hoffman
>_______________________________________________
>json mailing list
>json@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>



-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email