Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH

[Alexander Holler <[e-mail]>]

Am 30.01.2014 16:16, schrieb Ben Campbell:
> (As [the other] Chair)
>
> Alexander, do you support (or object to)  adoption of POSH as a working group item?

Hmm, I haven't studied POSH in depth, but I like everything which gets 
rid of the need of DNSSEC (to store certificates) or CA's and enables 
the use of e.g. self-signed certificates for XMPP. I don't trust the 
root key of DNSSEC or any CA. ;)

So I would like POSH, I just think it should accept some form of 
comments in their JSON (as most JSON-parsers already do).

I've run into that problem with missing standardized comments in JSON 
already in other places, that's why I've brought up that topic (as I 
really think it is fatal design flaw of JSON in it's current form, at 
least if whatever that JSON is used for should be readable/editable by 
humans).

Regards,

Alexander Holler

>
> Keep in mind that adoption doesn't imply the draft is complete or even correct, just that it's the best way forward. I expect we would continue this discussion, among other technical discussions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Alexander Holler <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Am 30.01.2014 13:25, schrieb Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr):
>>> (As chair)
>>>
>>> JSON comments are *out of scope* for the XMPP working group.  Please take
>>> your suggestions to the JSON working group if you think you have an
>>> approach that can be adopted.
>>
>> Hmm, so you are going to define or adopt a standard which lacks the possibility to use comments (either to provide human readable descriptions or as a way to quickly deactivate something)?
>>
>> I would't call this out of scope. If you adopt POSH without providing (defining) a way how to add comments to the JSON definitions, this will be a serious flaw (in my humble opinion).
>>
>> I'm not calling that the XMPP working group fixes that serious problem of JSON, I'm calling that they will add a sentence like "comments may start with a #) to the POSH standard or it's adoption if the working group is going to adopt it. You might call it a "variant" of JSON.
>>
>> Anyway, I've just wanted to provide a maybe useful comment for POSH and don't want to discuss JSON.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alexander Holler
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/30/14 11:54 AM, "Alexander Holler" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 30.01.2014 10:13, schrieb Tobias Markmann:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Alexander Holler
>>>>> <[e-mail]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The JSON[2] spec referenced by JWK doesn't mention comments at all. I
>>>>> guess
>>>>> the JSON you'll use in JWK simply can't include any comments.
>>>>
>>>> Thats why I said POSH should define how comments shpuld be defined.
>>>> Almost any JSON parser provides a syntax for comments (e.g. using # or
>>>> //) and I'm unable to understand why comments in JSON aren't standardized.
>>>>
>>>> And if I read the draft for POSH, e.g. setion 8. shows why one (human)
>>>> would like to have comments.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Alexander Holler
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmpp mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmpp mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>