IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath WG next steps

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 24 December 2020 07:51 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 98F993A10B5 for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:51:28 -0800 (PST)
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 nHThoRCSY6CE for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:51:27 -0800 (PST)
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 074503A10B3 for <jsonpath@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id m25so2974489lfc.11 for <jsonpath@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:51:26 -0800 (PST)
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=ffYiXHtbtfmTaAU7xYT+9EZiU0egQzF2vE2clhPqV/8=; b=BNk7ktatXRGBlviXSu0MJLh+eSX43uHTg0gph7NFXKTV0KiZw/9gXC6EcFj4ApQ/gu wiAG1tHhf0fGcxd4BnUsc5HsgX1wlY7KMjFOBvUwsCeKOOJCbg2JaFhf5+N+cCaW2cSo DUl++niDxu5hKTHolHUc8f7aWkAfdtQJ+GYNcH/3LDLdfK03MJaVFNs0RT35+oqSpjF0 mAOTj2LDjUQmyB6E8C4jjS6f0PcjPSv0dz5ABqN8oCeh+zUHJVEjLD6/m9bNIxHFMUGt sgvRIBXeHloTwgCfKBZ2fy9J0SRRTXCzECCp8yBKFetzIC4bBe2+XNVA8Gd9AQqeWSic JaCQ==
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=ffYiXHtbtfmTaAU7xYT+9EZiU0egQzF2vE2clhPqV/8=; b=ettm7vrIqz8JwlIjH/U5G88Z4CX9iW3yByMebT9vQGAOeea6tGH9p4XO4xfcH4VOHz Mi5gqr53ESp5op6e8jT6stCYMi6ObobsdOH0/5wRSo7UqzT/73suP4dvEvjR1Daj0JKo n7Q4Pdz5hiGwWYB1onUhMIUB/6vZBmSm1SSNISHpsX2exzrSko6kMNt5aRvSm7hS5NwW iMROT9hf2XGg1CrkmX8MusZ03fVlH5P4ZGyfqGuOlyMk/6Q+itxzYwk7FeKJc+PKCRAC CoGs4hPssv+kpVnrp+ITvzYI+VWDywvcURaKcNieCmE5zYZUU/LMrXCEioU5A6TeHZfj IaeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314gzY7rqzy0Cf1DlGBUVXZq6mJN14a5ZiuoM8PNlmmPrUqhnaI jkUafqkuZWeL0+RWWY7G/vibT7N0bmKvdpFqYWUHuorK1gM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNmVCnNI/vZmuIpOWPtGh3DxK2aqIztD7ac61tMIogl/FyLX2VDvwRE/RmwjGBNtiJ10bVT1lvX3XTQXXKUug=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b80d:: with SMTP id u13mr13649751ljo.143.1608796285308; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:51:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHBU6isXOWxuNT2_kdo_ZBoqJpTyt59W+0-FMmjRvbPGLhNWNA@mail.gmail.com> <00da063e49dd4ba176651eb5b52b01bbf18522ac.camel@gmail.com> <86F20551-0819-4D0E-B987-5B2D39CE86CF@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <86F20551-0819-4D0E-B987-5B2D39CE86CF@tzi.org>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:51:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itytz9zvgSm2NJO_9PwGUV6pNOujOK54r4tXX9wXGu8WA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Glyn Normington <glyn.normington.work@gmail.com>, jsonpath@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001a213205b73113ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jsonpath/WhuhKdnlh2KIVoNTm8GclYjXQRE>
Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath WG next steps
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: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 07:51:29 -0000

Hmm, draft-ietf-jsonpath-00 certainly wouldn't offend me, but on the
other hand there's a lot to be said for sticking to conventions.  I'm
imagining someone writing a bot to plow through WG drafts and relying on
the convention. I've added Murray to the "To" line to see if he has an
opinion.  James? Anyone else?

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:27 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On 2020-12-24, at 08:14, Glyn Normington <glyn.normington.work@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Internet-draft naming for WG documents is
>
> draft-ietf-wgname-subject-subject-subject-nn
>
> Now if there is only one draft in the WG, we might leave the subject off
> entirely.
> I actually find a few cases where this has been done:
>
> draft-ietf-cnrp-12.txt
> draft-ietf-geojson-04.txt
> draft-ietf-gsmp-11.txt
> draft-ietf-itrace-04.txt
> draft-ietf-lisp-24.txt
> draft-ietf-otp-01.txt
> draft-ietf-sming-02.txt
> draft-ietf-upsmib-05.txt
>
> Most of these are older cases (1994 to 2006, with geojson at 2016 being
> the newest), but it sure could be done again.
>
> (Some of the WGs then did develop further drafts with non-empty subject
> parts, e.g., lisp.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email