IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] What are we trying to do?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 C69A021F995E for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 7ZnHfaKkv-gi for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA00D21F995B for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A32627BC061 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=CKjXAIou5qn0np+5/3Vd tZlR22c=; b=YengaXzNAoaMH8Gs5I4XTbaawec+8PXomLrV6LeoNeVEDMiegHfs NXxkzcROV/vAOLf4TV3XG/9bNATXm4emDZqZy1V0np1+9V1+B7vHug55scNU7uGs TzspDENYjYl+KwYdVW8UzPinuN3++oo9eV2hK5r8hTdRibjgOclGrW0=
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 343EF27BC05D for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z11so5671920wgg.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XP7BUBjFnz3E/TOzZNiu4HfKTevZE11W4BjxBINgn5s=; b=b0XDvOhz0L2cEYKdNQ45lUApk/YmzHYlWfIl7VAgN3uqV/BSbFg7kY0+cCotE2Y6X7 uXVq4KgCGZ8V1Ba5iNBOK9xSRL2/O8wRKq4/kAPsV1DrpCagrKs8sTX8FFdgy6x8hJpl J5nVVcfB1/2YbIjgD0L4+zFZkwpXr33bQXiG2b6dNle6WQ/4h60pp1vlpv+pmBmr8lzv dbM6KlI4kl6ai7TJQGIjTQiFWHMtvw/dXxn+P1NSEncXCSwYkJukU9xkA8xN2ND3ccia 0Jo1k8r+USyx/7tHCxriagIN86B85M2kqYqrFyRbowoHylAYT4rMeaxKMXxiTNOLNg0y PgbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.76.206 with SMTP id m14mr1014715wiw.38.1372868965702; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.152.73 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FB90FFED-5128-4B5C-85DE-78DFE2674310@vpnc.org>
References: <CAHBU6iv0wXYvAyasSE8Wga0K_sD_pKL6o-a-ca9yemhy3m6zzw@mail.gmail.com> <FB90FFED-5128-4B5C-85DE-78DFE2674310@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 11:29:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjvtU6=3EowmU0ccWAfQPSoGaUhPMLe+uK6pVR_sQDGFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] What are we trying to do?
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, 03 Jul 2013 16:29:33 -0000

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> <no hats>
>
> +1 to everything Tim said, particularly "charter is self-contradictory". We didn't realize this when we put together the charter (a process in which dozens of people participated), but we do now.

Re-reading the charter I'm not sure that there's a contradiction.  We
can do something:

 - remove the safe-for-eval regexp silliness

 - add a section describing divergent interpretations

 - leave the rest mostly as-is with only those changes for which we
can get consensus

   E.g., we can probably get consensus for "generators SHOULD NOT
output duplicate names" and "parsers SHOULD use the last of any
duplicate names" with appropriate text describing when and why one
might deviate from this guidance.

   E.g., we can probably get consensus for describing a subset of JSON
strings that is guaranteed to interoperate, even though we can't ban
unpaired surrogates.

Then re-charter and publish a BCP.

Alternatively, we could re-charter now.  I can propose text as soon as
we decide to start that discussion.

Nico
--

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status