Re: [Json] WG Review: JavaScript Object Notation (json)
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 20 May 2013 08:59 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 011F821F842F; Mon, 20 May 2013 01:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 z4vlSPQ3vlRY; Mon, 20 May 2013 01:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027AC11E80FC; Mon, 20 May 2013 01:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4K8N36V013811; Mon, 20 May 2013 01:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369038188; bh=tbD14NqS90BkIbNKkEYH8Zro+pL1g8fo1mW4TnaY+fg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=M2ayQcy+y5TX2LFLbHi06vCgqVJ3o4K3qxd/xUnhHmnqZThu0Mtk6h0dzIAG4Wfh7 DMwgFIM2udaGdg/gDMcHvLZDlNNT7CgqgUVc/KNapZLpEFw4fuMOxy+jnXaJ7Lgsmk gnp1I9OEqcmkHGQVfd95maB0YQe2BB01za+HAQ3o=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1369038188; i=@resistor.net; bh=tbD14NqS90BkIbNKkEYH8Zro+pL1g8fo1mW4TnaY+fg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dj9vBs6T3JDlvrHDdTWRf9RPOJO3bhwdkbovJ2xCd5uI6ZmgIRtBttOBFw/huvl2h jU//7BkC2l3+BwAkMyT+U1D7B++3C7WBakgThUs/tZMBOYAtYY8wLnt37DfkcrGvVy PbqNXbhZPL3Adlc3+nup8Yg03xNkjUTLMo8yHXZs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130520011300.0ce753b0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 01:22:28 -0700
To: iesg@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130517155031.6329.6238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20130517155031.6329.6238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] WG Review: JavaScript Object Notation (json)
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: Mon, 20 May 2013 08:59:28 -0000
At 08:50 17-05-2013, The IESG wrote: >A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area. The >IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was >submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send >your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-05-27. [snip] >The resulting document will be jointly published as an RFC and by ECMA. >ECMA participants will be participating in the working group editing >through the normal process of working group participation. The >responsible >AD will coordinate the approval process with ECMA so that the versions >of the document that are approved by each body are the same. In my opinion the argument for the restricted copyright in the IETF is to avoid divergence of a specification in future. The proposed charter (see text above) is about creating two (I assume identical) versions of the JSON specification. Which one will be the authoritative version? Please note that I do not have a strong opinion about this. Regards, -sm