Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> Sat, 14 November 2015 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139F01B29BF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:35:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9breohizeC3C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com (mail-yk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D9D1A9132 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdr82 with SMTP id r82so190661946ykd.3 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:35:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rpPFyuu8s4mviHyKd366g3HfA9G16ooNKfrUrNnwC38=; b=J6MBnGs9mzJ6NV3SnCJEqcAZjP2GzyvQzZiKztZ13m9KTicFhCuZDqOBQLpmZMpq7/ jUuvUjekFllb6exyMbL3qUYKMZUsckxOohSwc2fQHjZV7MpQBOOKK0npEEfPne6RBdPm d1hbvVRt8+ZQCtnyKRzOPSHX6QS90QTNQhwfGqbUnMiHj1Hjpni806ZcIq+eAUirsn1e 9EL4oXJg2/vZTZEf2bS6zx7o8DukqlAwQpa+kSVqUMfTv5GQQvOGzgb2YuIolR1ki0Nc R/sKA1+yEuVMlcueKdOCBw7UQTIheApZl+Ku0xoBr3koKxWKD/uQ/pui1O6QFTkw1VN7 lrzQ==
X-Received: by 10.129.31.70 with SMTP id f67mr28482404ywf.114.1447529735634; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:35:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from idefix.nuance.com (pool-108-53-90-228.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net. [108.53.90.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z130sm20639023ywb.18.2015.11.14.11.35.34 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:35:34 -0800 (PST)
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
References: <CAHBU6iu0j492Mzbo2HriFtjm_o5516yCsQCX9PGHvqAxhU0Zjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56478D05.7080104@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:35:33 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iu0j492Mzbo2HriFtjm_o5516yCsQCX9PGHvqAxhU0Zjg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/zDFAd8Nr83sgAb5LUrvbXIWQUwA>
Subject: Re: [Json] Normative reference reasoning and logistics
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:35:38 -0000

On 11/14/2015 11:10 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

[...]

> So, is there a *real* reason why a normative reference might be useful? I
> think there might be, and it's purely rhetorical (in the formal sense,
> designed to support an argument): To make it clear to the world that all JSON
> is the same JSON no matter where it's specified.  So I think it would be
> plausible to add the following to the second paragraph of section 1.2 of 7159
> (for convenience: http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159#rfc.section.1.2 ):
> 
> “The reference to ECMA-404 in the previous sentence is normative, not with the
> usual meaning that implementors need to consult it in order to understand this
> document, but to emphasize that there are no inconsistencies in the definition
> of the term “JSON text” in any of its specifications. Note, however, that
> ECMA-404 allows several practices which this specification recommends avoiding
> in the interests of maximal interoperability.”

I don't see any utility in making the reference normative, particularly if
wording along the lines of  "There are no differences in the definition
of the term ``JSON text'' between this specification and ECMA-404 [informative
reference].  There is no intent to allow the two specifications to diverge in
the future on what is allowable for JSON text." is in 7159bis.  This wording
seems to be adequate support for what I think everyone hopes is the case.

peter

PS:  Is there any formal definition for the railroad tracks in ECMA-404?