IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Two Documents

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 19 June 2013 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 A633421F9CC8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UOQhOJhC0BuC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9080021F9CE2 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5JEnV9n026574 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54893A31.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.58.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88B283B57; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <A3CE009B-CF14-4B2F-86C4-E2E06165316E@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:49:30 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <970B7CC5-0726-4BED-94D7-FF91D335E1E3@tzi.org>
References: <51B9EA49.2050604@crockford.com> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411528A0E2@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <51C1121E.8050004@crockford.com> <A3CE009B-CF14-4B2F-86C4-E2E06165316E@vpnc.org>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Subject: Re: [Json] Two Documents
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 19 Jun 2013 14:49:46 -0000

On Jun 19, 2013, at 05:14, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> interoperability

That is the operative work here.

We write standards track specifications to foster interoperability.

If you can't go away with a standards track spec (and the documents it normatively references) and independently create something that then interoperates, the spec has missed its mark.

The WG is specifically tasked with taking the existing RFC to standards-track, so any change that counteracts that objective is a non-starter.

So +1 to what Paul and Tim said.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status