IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@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 22E0121F8886 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:41:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, 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 UTJDfb3s7G4W for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265E621F8887 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:41:09 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1KHf7UJ028824 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:41:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com [10.116.132.56]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1KHf6JS023013 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:41:07 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5124FB74.9050207@att.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:41:06 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <91DB94DC-1D3F-406E-B644-233CEB0B09A1@cisco.com>
References: <CAChr6SxNLJ8kqsMUjiMMhx9w-quUkqEbpPjMF5fF-02jyUNPrQ@mail.gmail.com> <734F6B55-2AA7-44A6-A636-7221C8518479@vpnc.org> <5124FB74.9050207@att.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed document set from this WG
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:41:10 -0000

+1

I can get behind this.

--G


On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote:

> On 2/20/2013 11:20 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:47 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My suggestion is for the WG to target this use case only, and to treat
>>> the JSON processing rules in ECMAScript 5, Section 15.12 (The JSON
>>> Object) as the baseline for rules regarding encoding and decoding,
>>> rather than RFC4627.
>> It feels weird to be agreeing with Rob so early in the discusson, but I agree on both parts.
>> 
>> - Charter 4627bis *and nothing else*, so that the 4627bis work is done without distraction. It is really clear that canonicalization and schema/description have the *high* potential for distraction.
>> - Say that the base for that one charter item is RFC 4627 *and* ECMAScript 5, which seems to be widely-deployed.
>> - Say that the WG is likely to recharter while 4627bis is under review by the IESG to discuss schema/description.
>> - Given the recent consensus, don't mention canonicalization in the charter at all unless another WG or SDO has specifically asked us to work on it.
> 
> +1
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email