IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.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 4A35E21F863F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:28:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 vUhR4ZNiyTQc for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45AB21F8619 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:28:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=724; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361392120; x=1362601720; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=biLN6xCLJIK6ZvHjR9W8ScyIS5IhLZdY/tLarS5kdpM=; b=My62dcx6ZTdvZOVaROPOmj9CHQ6bkBNanY3f/mWtSgLx5eX6l5OdDFu0 upBSCOhRZuy/uPH9cvwEF3pyyeVh+d95qWeCjurKwzoLLls8zvnWqeUha /F9Lurk6CaHqP5FuNzWwCNJQu9ZVZofn5kiHAPbaDbGykkk6dK+jYoOlY 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmwFAFAxJVGtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABFhgK6XYECFnOCIQEEOj8SAQgOFBQxESUCBAENBQiHeAMPtn4NiVqMN4ImMQeCX2EDlFGNIYUVgweCJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,703,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="179299301"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2013 20:28:40 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1KKSeOQ023592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:28:40 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:28:40 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items
Thread-Index: AQHOD5RjTUz37iGayUSEf11jvGkoDJiDigUAgAAJN4CAAAE8AP//jVSA
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:28:39 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F89B751@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBC87P7FT7n5d8xmXMxSFU1LBS9eJUsRX4hfYP5CUJr3QA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <717A652A3DC816438C7D5B1DC5B90326@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 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 20:28:41 -0000

On 2/20/13 1:19 PM, "Francis Galiegue" <fgaliegue@gmail.com> wrote:

>And what about JSON-RPC which uses an _array_ of requests/responses
>for batch requests?
>
>While an object may be suitable for 95+% of protocols, this is not a
>reason for outlawing protocols which _do not_ use objects. And it
>costs nothing to enlarge what is possible.

I would urge not focusing on specific issues for a potential BCP just yet.
 Let's focus first on the question: "Does it seem useful for us to work on
this sort of problem?"

Traditionally, we would want the charter to be pretty well-understood at
the time of the BoF, and this sort of scope definition is our most
important task this week.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email