Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 16 March 2017 20:33 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 D147F129A58 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OlRbvfgEDagd for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8B72129A52 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.31] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v2GKWxPb038650 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:33:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [10.32.60.31]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Matthew Miller" <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:33:06 -0700
Message-ID: <0E32A94D-CE12-4F52-9ED6-8743C49751B4@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1fb5849e-8dbf-835d-65b7-2403686248f9@outer-planes.net>
References: <1fb5849e-8dbf-835d-65b7-2403686248f9@outer-planes.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/wT9HqToStJwGpog7XoCur-pWVKc>
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"
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: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:33:09 -0000

This whole thread feels like a regression from RFC 7159. The abstract of 
this document says:

    This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of
    JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based
    interoperability guidance.

Opening up to new encodings reduces interoperability.

In addition:

> 1) Does the working group think adding any text on how to detect the
> encoding worthwhile?

No. Adding a multi-step test that is easy to get wrong reduces 
interoperability.

--Paul Hoffman