Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <> Wed, 20 February 2013 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB1921F8816 for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:24:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qr+iADF6waSM for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:24:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD49221F8806 for <>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:24:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=987; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361391854; x=1362601454; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=tvmRfAWqePq6YRSZvwtBstIuoF/WC5LUnWslEzilanc=; b=gt2+p/obR32nY0732isiUM1a10AjjvVeHgPmCyHt508ffD6/fW08JoL9 ZpoOhl6ZAPLVfVsiTbO/wk5a0inqHL7gkzL1qvSu8qoUviG5U5QCg6yJp UBZbYylp2nFqGGHL/AdcNP1RGnKxiHt/0piBIKwJ8ktvkRDx3FfCENnpM U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,703,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="179324979"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2013 20:24:14 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KKOE6R031287 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:24:14 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:24:14 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
Thread-Index: AQHOD4+Hzm3bIvMaPk2Qb7T7cknXbZiDZ5qAgAASMICAAAVCAP//oY4A
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:24:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:24:15 -0000

On 2/20/13 12:02 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <> wrote:

>On Feb 20, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Nico Williams <> wrote:
>> One I-D as simple as this hardly justifies a WG.
>Getting broad consensus on changing a standard that is implemented widely
>outside the IETF justifies the effort to have the time and space for
>consensus. This is *not* just IETF work.

That seems like a solid argument.

(BoF chair)
We should definitely spend some time on this question at the BoF.  I think
it's going to be the crux for whether we charter a working group or not.
As such, the apparea wg chairs and AD's opinions are likely to be
interesting from a management perspective.  Do they want the overhead of a
working group for something relatively small or not?

In my talks with Pete and Barry, I've been given to believe that they
would like to be able to charter and kill small working groups rapidly.

Joe Hildebrand