[Json] JSON Schema

Henry Andrews <henry@cloudflare.com> Sat, 20 January 2018 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <henry@cloudflare.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 00C5E127735 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:25:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.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 sHEuZthjHeZW for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22c.google.com (mail-wr0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]) (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 2D84C128C0A for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:25:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id z48so4644350wrz.6 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:25:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mndAywPXyMC6/9dfp/R0zku9zw9PthPYQshNoZCoYJs=; b=x+Gp1lU0oG36RaDthmMAwGGSRFUMLzMw2FJdJU+2EWP7bdSfB/GSM+HierC+OH4Nmw SHo/jwdWhZGa/a5ravdLx/YgRpTmbwY1E94cWgcPzQYSwgTbtunz8l2BmT1MWZ+dHhyj 3S4/dj2SDiwLx71DWw6Pjo5jqcTniS/20VCp4=
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:cc; bh=mndAywPXyMC6/9dfp/R0zku9zw9PthPYQshNoZCoYJs=; b=llXhggMFgpkjxRcbsIuu07W2EEYcRIddFB7XVInPcX5d/acflvDHgRk/m/AvL0Me1c f+/dmYwOkf8zTonaupN/QJjruQmEJUSVHoUPK14mVvKQB1P4uXQypnr+jxMdPbUPXxg+ EDpfErt14Bf/96OzgY+hk9NyuoPYyxBqA66D3cFrOAH1B4wm/d/PKzkdYJvuC27hhEK5 sjTb94M96KtXCvEuWDAVvK7RVG9eVJf4LmPGiF54BTB6C23ivlvEFZUfGNhudc2UDJ0N Sy35HSqLuysWpv4PLo4rVFn1UyAY4hjvcvX+D30kHDCNo1Y77583Se6xcNAe2TKXCEEx rJvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdvB+5Sc6/3CMI+K1KeiWTLNHvKGiXHOg8kdvyVz6N/gjjS/680 z12VCiTGlXklSkLl0yY8qcoCbLrl/wNtMXHw3SAsrGyQ/w0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224hq5dXuSr8Bxsqe9/eYFrg1pUSwMtSkFQZkqd3ud/vK75E4jDjaRF76BMFqEZVYD5IcWAszyh1tOsIGiKDMAo=
X-Received: by 10.223.177.196 with SMTP id r4mr2130360wra.244.1516483545405; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:25:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.124.4 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:25:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Henry Andrews <henry@cloudflare.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:25:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CANp5f1OzPukQ9T69kDaVVTXs0DYdXzY+n=AN6iVRgKKHR4S9CA@mail.gmail.com>
To: json@ietf.org
Cc: Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>, Ben Hutton <bh7@sanger.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ed022082ed205633bd7ea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/w--4QtcF9remEI3FfGM6ghBFkEQ>
Subject: [Json] JSON Schema
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:25:50 -0000

Hi folks,
  I'm one of the JSON Schema draft editors, and it's been brought to our
attention that the JSON Schema project may fit within this working group
(or a successor?  I'm a little confused as to the current status and scope
of this group).  We are definitely interested in having the project adopted
by an IETF working group and eventually reaching RFC status if possible.

  To date we have not felt like the project is quite ready for that step,
although I don't personally have a good feel for the criteria.  Since
October 2016, Austin Wright and I, with a great deal of behind-the-scenes
help from Ben Hutton and others, have published three drafts of JSON Schema
Core and Validation, four of Hyper-Schema, and two of Relative JSON
Pointer.  We are actively working on the next Core and Validation drafts
right now.

  In addition to the obvious JSON Schema community engagement, we are also
working directly with the Open API technical steering committee to resolve
the problems that led them to adopt an almost-but-not-quite-compatible form
of JSON Schema.  I feel like they are a good proxy for general adoption
problems as they have a large community of their own, and their concerns
arise from common use cases that are not quite well-served at this time
(particularly code generation).  We've also engaged a bit with folks using
JSON-LD who want to figure out how to leverage both, although that idea is
very embryonic at this time.

  We're currently working on resolving some major questions of scope for
the project overall and the Core and Validation specifications in
particular (a lot of it related to how use cases such as code generation
fit with the existing targeted use cases).  I hope to resolve these in the
next major draft before the current ones expire.  There may be a minor
bug-fix in the next week or so, separate from that effort, and one
additional scope question may be deferred to another draft beyond that.

  Once the scope is settled, I had planned to actively look into working
group status for the core and validation specifications.  Hyper-Schema
requires more work and at least a few viable implementations.  Relative
JSON Pointer could probably move to working group status as well if it is
of interest (we've also considered merging it into JSON Schema Core if
there is no interest in it as its own RFC: JSON Path is not a good fit for
our needs despite being a great idea in its own right, and we already make
extensive use of JSON Pointer).

  I believe that the ongoing broad use and implementation of JSON Schema
despite a multi-year abandonment of the draft work shows that it is a very
viable and useful technology despite the complaints around the edges (I
noticed that the complaint on this mailing list from 2016 was also about
code generation- as I mentioned, that's a current focus of ours to
resolve).  We've started to see implementations of the new drafts in use,
and interest in the latest draft picked up even more quickly than the one
before, so there seems to be real interest in taking JSON Schema over the
finish line into some sort of official standard. The current team is
committed to seeing this through. The recent change in submitting editor is
just a reflection of who had the most time; the core team members have all
remained involved since draft publication resumed.

  I'm interested in any feedback or suggestions on the path forward.

thanks,
-henry

-- 

   -

   *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
   henry@cloudflare.com
   <https://www.cloudflare.com/>

   1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
   -