Re: [Json] Counterproposal on work items

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 27 February 2013 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.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 96E6121F886B for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:15:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.958
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 GjqWhGFhwpoO for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com (mail-ve0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0128621F881A for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d10so892897vea.40 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:15:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Fiyq6ql6gJNPCt7ZAmjnW/zY55rWIL5f2oL7nbykoOI=; b=KpzhXjf23FKnUnS4/1iPJR32Yj1ndr9XZRU2RFFWUDGniMI9HZLuy5ulyeZVaPB6wc X1jNtm8oD2w8KlSmgxRpkuU1Pvs6+7VylCNpRbChpNtZT5fS7lw7YKFzdwGIS0yx6iwu jwnhEDwojt6JwpZI18Ps3PMjSmBuLeG+U4/PMbVxow+mODLivSlcfjyLZA6yUs943KjL AlFDDb7xbUoKTrJsrqfS1ux1pvaRhwNmIjGdG7gNHOqN48VcM6XCzoq+tD5J2/RHAuL6 NyhIaF9YeOlVxBytfUzr93NYtjgv1524n13zdoTuK6czeX6Pzj40kK+EQ5ELNuFT9q5m Mbvg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.117.229 with SMTP id kh5mr1308731veb.27.1361988920596; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:15:20 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.59.3.41 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:15:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <00b001ce1509$c4c99fc0$4e5cdf40$@packetizer.com>
References: <CAHBU6ityBeA+M-PEme09gO_jVySr33-X308i1UttxrQwSgYmGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjFCnR8k1csVOkSKTDpA8exDvYdAijn80HKD5zwNzzeSw@mail.gmail.com> <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org> <4D80AE86-4DBA-4236-9E2A-A06F2F9C30F7@mnot.net> <00b001ce1509$c4c99fc0$4e5cdf40$@packetizer.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:15:20 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c8wghMk6W9nt2iq6ZE9ubDjVRkE
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDXwPRL-Cz_Xf-kjU3dzzY+JheDGivSE9hF2v1NLkWEgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, json@ietf.org
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, 27 Feb 2013 18:15:24 -0000

>> I don't know. I think I'd be fine if we just asked Crockford (perhaps
>> helped by a willing editor) to do 4627bis and then have the AD sponsor
>> it on Standards Track.
>
> I did ask him.  I actually asked him about updating it even before I had
> heard about the JSON BoF.  He indicated that he is willing to work on it "as
> long as it does not break compatibility with existing implementations."
>
> As editor, I think he would be in a good position to ensure that his
> requirement is met.

Indeed; I had talked with him back in August, as well, with the same
response.  And as the likely responsible AD for any WG that forms, I
can say that I strongly agree with the "doesn't break compatibility"
point.  My view is that the charter has to make it clear that the
"4627 to Standards Track" work is essentially a re-classification in
place, rolling in errata and clarifications, but *not* changing the
language.  Any proposals that actually make changes would have to come
later, and be considered as separate work proposals.

Barry, Applications AD