Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

["Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[e-mail]>]

On 07/28/2016 09:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we have
>> the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated publish of
>> the two documents.  But having our side ready to go, including finishing
>> AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in that process.
> 
> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism that
> makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it also contains
> the change we expect.

Yes, how can this document be approved when there is no indication of what
changes are going to be made to ECMA-404?

>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not pushing the
>> button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC Production Center
>> is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a downref.
>>
>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to
>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)?  That would make it *very* clear to the
>> RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in place to ensure
>> the reference is resolved before publishing.
> 
> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient.

A simple reference to something that doesn't exist isn't going to help much,
if at all.

> Best regards, Julian
> 
> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback.


peter