Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath WG next steps

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:14 PM Glyn Normington <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> > The next thing we need to do is get it checked in - James has made a
> > repo in our project at https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath.  We think
> > the proper new name is draft-ietf-jsonpath-jsonpath-00 - does anyone
> > disagree?
>
> I presume that's the name of the document. (The repo should not, of
> course, have a version in its name.)
>
> Out of interest, why the "stutter" in the name? Wouldn't draft-ietf-
> jsonpath-00 be less cumbersome? I don't feel strongly, but it would be
> good to know the rationale.
>

The convention is draft-ietf-${WG}-${DRAFT_SUBJECT} - in my previous
IETFing I've never been in a situation where the WG name and draft subject
are the same, but it can't be entirely unknown. I'll bounce it off our AD.



>
> >
> > After reaching out to all four people who edited previous drafts,
> > James and I have asked Marko Mikulicic and Stefan Goessner to serve
> > as co-editors for the WG going forward. It would be appreciated if
> > our co-editors could fix up the name and have a look at the issues on
> > Glyn's repo and migrate at least some of them over to our official
> > project, applying editorial judgment about what deserves to be
> > carried forward.
> >
> > As soon as the draft is in place, we're hoping to see a flurry of
> > issues and PRs and looking forward to lively discussion of what a
> > JSONPath really is and what we can most usefully say about it.
>
>
>