[Json] JSL: Clarifying purpose, and renaming it to JDDF

Ulysse Carion <ulysse@segment.com> Wed, 28 August 2019 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ulysse@segment.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 CD9BC120862 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=segment.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53zm8855MSL3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF6EC120831 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id 18so1992832ioe.10 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=segment.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4fjaes6es/5GXwztN06uBM6YfrnPUc1ui8J+hOGlDA0=; b=e1eOFKnAbzimp6LU1dcYtDerMxJ23gJAchh4YdNw1z4xk6ZMBQpxxsB0p+TzuafyWn OhDnhx1X/pJzm6zuVBlUxBswKybBhJWjQCSDrkKvZrYsXJW6L8qTiAyzW7Xbbl+4icr6 2UfGkJUFt5egFcDpknTZZAu7p88zlcn/qhmwA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4fjaes6es/5GXwztN06uBM6YfrnPUc1ui8J+hOGlDA0=; b=irG+klawN0RngAXCbOgdAEy+DCCGOfGdYwUxvrYEf5/z4tzxCjQUdzt17uRBQ77z4P NbCJTSpWeOgU87qttLyK0QJhbkoY6JC5hhhPXGfGWbIht5IwpkrC4fY5V/EWX+bwWqbm /stIjrl9PbKWnczVBUB78rYodqpT2R4WgA8CxF1xV96TompV9jIM4Y771ozhv1cPHdUy qqz1q9famKl2Wdjqi/35dLr+4RPxTgStqOy5gIuSih/DtD36H91Y/JsiuE49x6NYB5Ev hLwhysL8IiMxtqpO2wGNTmky6Cmz8nmMQyWpa0FWDJsX+3mFyHNFNBCejNnBNpyqqqMU U1bQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWa5rjb2yj+t22seSv9OQLRQ0clfg/VEFt7lBGC3w8k0oie923k 4KcnGHl0VJ70CCxNxgHMvjPA0yDjA0Qq2NrRKgvZ7bB7YkA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyNQxZAfDPP8DPhhm8W3u8jH8EsuZ8o1Ezo99cpTeUkiuui5Aw6vIW/g7S0Y3jS+duzPnPzqy9mLbHkRfSfAZk=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:952d:: with SMTP id y42mr6279399jah.66.1567022244913; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ulysse Carion <ulysse@segment.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:57:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK=1Rj6zW_MffKvsOiQh28KY5yDeoALGSYqve+vGj52s1Owag@mail.gmail.com>
To: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/tnG7o3jTAcLnT9XCYTJi62rXXUo>
Subject: [Json] JSL: Clarifying purpose, and renaming it to JDDF
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 28 Aug 2019 19:57:29 -0000

Hi folks,

I want to continue to thank y'all for the attention to detail provided
in past iterations of JSL. The new I-D is published here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ucarion-jddf-00

The name of JSON Schema Language has been changed to JSON Data
Definition Format ("JDDF"). This is to avoid confusion with "JSON
Schema". The JSON Schema folks asked that I changed the name, and I
don't mind doing so. Sorry for the confusion.

The most important changes are to the introduction. I've clarified
what JDDF's niche is (code generation), as well as my position on what
seems to be ideal for a schema language optimized for code generation:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ucarion-jddf-00#section-1

I fear we may be at loggerheads on the question of {"type":"int53"}. I
continue to prefer for its omission from the spec. James, Carsten --
might we ultimately have to agree to disagree on this question? It
seems easier to later on add int53 than to later remove it.

Best,
Ulysse