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

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <> Mon, 01 August 2016 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBC612B056; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:51 -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 4BqqeYwxgTnY; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE5E7128874; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f6so154194440ith.0; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:48 -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=cfYHDznHl1ZAADCTXFJ0WkbEmK/lGCNROyInhWSbuAo=; b=v9WHqFV/NhzrFM4fi0e0MvJBgtz7kqr8MSlmjL1P8vDlGDCXhPJ6a1YaAbNoAaNZG5 qBGSSD+SvMEb6YwgwHf3FqHu2Xlm2BUhUmnyGxMyRAOmTMz5XWIai1fGjdyf4WK2TGP+ 6Re+wPt5FBpN43YDDXnxHRyzjTPIzzWgkZExj6GD9Sv4d/QDGkpQFnkmEFDIWNU5S7KI qw0nCc5VJ8DRGjrnAhjOASamg62qLxY8r/zm7uQ9t8CIkYeyN1j1Tdg6qt7+KWTeTUUx OUJ+O6NosPO9dUHr9o4PHuxacCP7IpDcA/PGikVRdNZPUnSIVtzOIk2QHIV4Md/5GXpK We0w==
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=cfYHDznHl1ZAADCTXFJ0WkbEmK/lGCNROyInhWSbuAo=; b=PLPJmb5CMTSxnET2M8uv6kP2jYOSX6r3JWGXjzQU5LHhHi7LKNcyiTBFkEObUVoWEl gtksUlTnETr6KKUWkl29e+a4KF5palHA/umnoq8DhPzTvWzFwADd0ankDvHt+k9TWIQ2 l5KQ0q24k7SBxI+QO8KJVm5xkjV7fHunOK9ZB1LJHHSxx9ysfyO0bPnZ4Ij3EIvthKFy D3FOG9Y/pdezhstuLYJGtZoVtaxxUGc8VqyWNknNtHUChAYDTA/pqJsot6omdGbnftnQ nvCH2knbvk7QH6AD/CVdrcGiu73MV8pvYnfoqFDu0SPxzoy+GCJXVXaorVXPNEpEguHA N5nQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuwW0A5DPSkhEWBbLnxE7eCjkhilYLXEd5o2DbQcFLrpO0lSMEaMC7R1rXYhXa+Ag==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g64mr54223723ite.75.1470014568155; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id f9sm12649767ioi.2.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <>, Julian Reschke <>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:39 -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: 8bit
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: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:22:51 -0000

I don't think that trust enters into the equation here.

A standards document, be it from IETF, or from some other organization, should
be complete before being considered for final review.  This is not the case
for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 because one of its normative references
is not available for review in the form that it needs to be to support
draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.  Trust in ECMA or WG chairs or ADs is no
substitute for having an actual document to review.

If there is trust involved it would be trusting that ECMA doesn't turn around
and remove the reciprocal language in a future  revision of ECMA-404.


On 07/30/2016 03:13 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a mood to
> trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs.
> (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the
> reference to the ECMA side removed.)
> Regards,   Martin.
> On 2016/07/29 01:13, 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.
>>> 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.
>> Best regards, Julian
>> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback.
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> .