IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath draft charter

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37223A0C90 for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 FqXLNZMdCiJ9 for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com (mail-lf1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) (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 3A8EF3A0C77 for <jsonpath@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id c15so293176lfi.3 for <jsonpath@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IAkyNeRJQK+vimTH40hc9L/g5HcUr48UHYlXoQJxZmY=; b=UeQT3/feaymwoHnL2OWxAU/M/q2M0YLk4kidLVBkKGHpwodGLsRykIrU6RTqPTAw4t tHROnJnNHmf4sY/lHEmp81YeYcMdOoKzR5RyHdIB+6eF5xKE3XKq6ntHh89vyZjHTCSp JQbl3llX/xqqCvdhx1nnO6kTehM81t2pA0kP/SrHiImKAyBuyNE7PpoYzQbBitfelEnR 3qdxFGiQdUsbWan+GsEy89cjklN25Ubtipq8gfYvdfcV8kjt3WNsAlh6pWBrC70XBAnO LNy0XSE+stczXQsPxUftU/f/WIdFwgrGlhlliGcSNAc1f3zTCmL4p+FMCy7dJOIqatlG HAIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IAkyNeRJQK+vimTH40hc9L/g5HcUr48UHYlXoQJxZmY=; b=EobqQMQLsqm4gt79sD2H15S6qrthJqO1hvFa6VXNyHiWMfAbg1oQ2CObBe4DehEhUL lFx/J2Oe69a3Fq3eIeNKDPobP8XJQFBGbScA9oRIffFm7XIdzYG9cj7gGJAJX8b11+zm 8Hhtwm8+Ht61WBAmgx/jvptA/T1Mh2EV/gZkiJrn78/nSbW3QHjSJVzXboAh/TJJ8eMz j3zgPCphv7uIeN60QnAw1Na8O/uetvmVUnV7Bkn6BkabtcE4MQc0xszhegq8SF92cPzC LsPignkKNxHw1k11LMJ6udhtziOrPm5dism8tA4f5I8rsFo+EjjOkn4DIaUUY4owJ6lC unbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533n+HhaKF+jMiKWK90WI1lKQms3+o2kKtetl8LdcdAu2Bwu2ojj ho417fQytciYP/gKFfqU/DdQmQpECKfBMhij/lVVBg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzhpy7kDaP+Q8YLQVevRLRsx7iHreC7MjU9D22Q8ADZEbkxHKYAOPXFLaVMTvk9hXHV7RW2W7OY7FXw/nyWMSg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:5cd:: with SMTP id o13mr3803676lfo.171.1599069256119; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.38.1597172408.10748.jsonpath@ietf.org> <CA+mwktKSMn0e3Xh5K3z-wxeC_icx3dnepWvxKu74miGqLb_wxA@mail.gmail.com> <AEE0C02D-DF63-4CEF-AC78-08180BC0B0F2@tzi.org> <CAHBU6ivxaeKRm8+5_DiP=qtpiWXEffD374n6dxx4bgJTt1nCbw@mail.gmail.com> <22C87C6B-F7FB-4074-8EEF-118AA28AB61B@tzi.org> <3AC3C075-2CA3-4DDC-BEE8-C3C4B179A61B@vmware.com> <CAHBU6ivA79KFJa4DfO4BEdGJ1K9pWP+cgHC4tegNjW90favxAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwb4WtQEKcnPmPYhkXp4_0rYjJKC52SEVtuxiG3MCVtXjQ@mail.gmail.com> <2498CFE1-D301-4238-AD9E-926817C4D7E5@tzi.org> <F868B402-52BE-4E79-84D8-13C000F0942F@vmware.com> <B91DEC0E-FE52-48DE-88BD-DD7C2109DD5A@tzi.org> <193BACC1-9D5F-4987-BA4E-3AFF9632D995@vmware.com> <9ACF3893-A7F1-4DD3-910C-92362BA652A5@tzi.org> <99DAB3E2-4359-47B5-98C7-25D1BC2B7E55@vmware.com> <CAHBU6itre+NLgxjdbK3WAdj9VvCrvbj0CqXbvMr1ZaeuSpdncw@mail.gmail.com> <B7AE60B2-1904-4F9B-AE4F-FD1BF034E884@tzi.org> <CAL0qLwbVL7MDQqafLR4+CQo+eeLEt0WKrwu1RijSU5r5QNHqcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbVL7MDQqafLR4+CQo+eeLEt0WKrwu1RijSU5r5QNHqcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:54:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itZD7orcMeTk8SuUF5QzQ0eb5eBctv9q_5AyWKRFoi7-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "jsonpath@ietf.org" <jsonpath@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb8ee605ae585255"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jsonpath/1WIdDem3ks4YFwNQUcFTPnqxGLY>
Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath draft charter
X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page <jsonpath.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jsonpath/>
List-Post: <mailto:jsonpath@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:54:24 -0000

I made https://github.com/jsonpath-wg/charter/pull/2 to say changes to
JMESPath and JSON Pointer are not contemplated. I actually don't have much
of an opinion as to whether this is an improvement, so I'm OK either way.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:20 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 8:45 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-09-02, at 17:39, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We're maybe overthinking this. Yes, JSONPointer and JMESpath exist, but
>> lots of people are using JSONPath, there's good software support but no
>> spec, so it would be beneficial to write a spec. What's the alternative,
>> everyone now using JSONPath rewrites their software because the alternative
>> has a spec?
>>
>> I think this is just a “we made our homework” type statement: We looked
>> at these and know that they exist, but the proposed WG is something
>> different.
>>
>
> Right; preempt such questions from the IESG, basically.
>
> Murray: Du you think that what we have is good enough to send it back to
>> DISPATCH?
>>
>
> Yes, I think so.  Some ADs like to see mention of things that are
> explicitly out of scope; if you feel so inclined, you could mention that
> updates to JSON Pointer or drafts about JMESPath will not be considered,
> but I would be willing to send this up without that, so your choice.
>
> -MSK
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email