IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 20 February 2013 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 693D321F8780 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:38:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O1fN0nK97twy for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134EE21F87BA for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KHcKH7089998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:38:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:38:19 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <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, 20 Feb 2013 17:38:22 -0000

On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> My proposal is: do nothing.
> 
> I use JSON for protocol design and work all the time, and have not observed any interop problems in the wild which originate at the JSON parson or construction level.  I give the incoming text to the library and it Just Works or reliably reports a syntax botch.  I give my data structures to the JSON serializer and cheerfully send off whatever comes out. I read specs and build clients and servers and, when things break, it’s because I’m stupidly using a bogus name or value in some field, not because of the serialization.
> 
> I suggest that there is not a problem here that needs the investment of precious IETF time.

-1.

There are places where RFC 4627 has SHOULDs where some processors do one thing and others do something different. That should be cleaned up in a standards-track RFC, and it should be done with lots of JSON developers and users having a discussion that comes to rough consensus.

The other stuff mentioned so far will probably happen as experimental RFCs even if there is no WG; a WG might help prevent those from being silly, but doing so might take a lot of effort (more than the value).

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email