Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath WG next steps

[Glyn Normington <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2020-12-23 at 10:56 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
> On behalf of James and myself:  Thanks to everyone for the quick
> consensus on accepting the Carsten/Glyn combined draft for adoption
> by the WG, and special thanks to Glyn and Carsten for getting this
> pulled together.
> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.