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

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <> Thu, 28 July 2016 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9456F12DB12; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9v9HtXledvaB; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99F112DB09; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q83so107189419iod.1; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=37Jp02woPcLqsjgi2L89D8vAG89njK7RiQXrL5QBXCw=; b=0/SSh3BYo8l8TZOGVeeroTx4b7wFOsUJ0vL+wvbbOm81qerAvkfJ9jFPJc6NrM1pPN kkLJvS51fxCaiZ7AnyM03/aFItqc/uEisEGv6+rCGgvA0a138SV+KIS2R+MB/VptOfqs 4xkTWX1yW1G0hEHvF7ODWB7ovaMIM4BHhH6nesiS2XlYXcqReb+Z4w3NZeweF2p7mxBl Xd3VvedG16evNvv19hjoRbzoJ9f3heCWpq9NqxWQ7onCUnpySf2p4VugyKnQgQPmcLOa yUPojvtSeeWTtb4ogDNpthm6fcBu5tyR5oq4mSICTTWYTjs5ozkrJEwdo/4Pars8M5pL VJ3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=37Jp02woPcLqsjgi2L89D8vAG89njK7RiQXrL5QBXCw=; b=gSG+oI871aRD7xST3gD6TLzEuon2FpagBvkzwlvy5hqWXD7HIS57oeTxRMLHTZq6a9 TZhGwC70N2ZFR2NN/B+2UrZwrVa7li9NvupI2lz3DXvs4FuwhL1/n/MUksQpblvSUU67 9AX5yugZ4Fp5DBvfP/gUODmVFlNldaa062+NALYmwFAbMK2Y7Nm+3oiQ9okU7UB8cVDe qVke+rtzotkYgxTGJcL/R3oEh32F/9aiGHgdZfARqAyPllv3ZSuohVlpyOVtzyXOh6Tl X4Tw5eA5UT7jo+RvdVJNZn/lizdRq2McWZ1CkuzvJrx9U4zMwfBhRAW9jfPM4/doMNsX NLFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvAYhVIGlo+vhUATru1U52S4RP/AK8h/+It8Ep6H4jLFCvsngg32D2PbMFrdiPEDA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u186mr38481261iod.112.1469728611262; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id z128sm5481081iof.4.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: Julian Reschke <>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:46 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:56:53 -0000

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.