Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH
Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Fri, 31 January 2014 15:13 UTC
Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA4A1A020C for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:13:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 LXtLnrnMSJuK for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67F61A0193 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:13:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4812; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391181227; x=1392390827; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QRD5XQIgGC0v1YB+YZR/w6zgbyQK6r3KxfRls6/GdPg=; b=lYUdAtfyxV3vuc3sYDebIs+l1v5RaMXq2SjjkevQiCD9uTyEXeGL550E DaRpZMDo9IKBY1d1w1KpXqaoK5cNSN7aUGN6JRFIHBwyL85CqNFT8XqN2 SQxuy8cafcVDc1aZtfv0NEwfeHqvM+d61SVJaynkDTdqJE4Mj/fFqjarI c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAJa861KtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgww4V70uCoEIFnSCJQEBAQQBAQFrChELGAkWDwkDAgECARUWGgYBDAYCAQGIAQ3MWReOTzqEOASJETiOYZIhg02CCg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,758,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="301028513"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2014 15:13:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0VFDk25014633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:13:46 GMT
Received: from excelsior.local (10.129.24.73) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (173.37.183.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:13:46 -0600
Message-ID: <52EA6FB3.2050007@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:28:51 -0700
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>, XMPP Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
References: <3E197582-9715-4FE9-AA4A-322FDC18F301@nostrum.com> <52EA1171.9010604@ahsoftware.de> <CAJ9A0VsVorYJu7sW_uevpakbZ0UeGQ0A+3NyystRB5=NJgmaLw@mail.gmail.com> <52EA2F60.4070103@ahsoftware.de> <CF1002CE.377C7%jhildebr@cisco.com> <52EA4A19.5060103@ahsoftware.de> <CF1010D6.37801%jhildebr@cisco.com> <88C7A135-498A-44B4-9855-413B7CEE091B@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <88C7A135-498A-44B4-9855-413B7CEE091B@nostrum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.129.24.73]
Subject: Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:13:59 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 [ speaking as a co-chair of the JSON Working Group ] The sole item for the JSON WG -- an update to RFC4627 -- is currently in the RFC editor's queue. The WG discussed the topic of comments a number of times, but there was no consensus to add comments to the JSON format at the time. The JSON WG is currently discussing what to do next. [ speaking personally ] I don't think the lack of a specific syntax for comments is all that harmful. Plenty of systems use JSON today for configuration, and seem to be getting by fine; *some* of them use a special syntax, but many (from the discussions in the jSON WG, it might even be a majority) make use of special name/value pairs within the objects. - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. On 1/30/14, 8:12 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > (As the "other chair:) > > I concur with Joe that extensions to JSON itself belong in the JSON > working group. That being said, if we run into a JSON limitation, > nothing prevents us (or some subset of us) from taking the problem > to the JSON wg. Perhaps if any JSON chairs happen to be monitoring > this thread, they can comment on how this sort of thing fits in > their charter and schedule ;-) > > (As individual: I am agnostic towards the need for comments, and if > they are best handled in JSON (the format, not the wg) vs > elsewhere. I await further discussion to form an opinion.) > > Thanks! > > Ben. > > On Jan 30, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) > <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote: > >> On 1/30/14 1:48 PM, "Alexander Holler" <holler@ahsoftware.de> >> 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 carefully didn't say that. Choosing something other than JSON >> is certainly in scope. >> >>> I would't call this out of scope. >> >> If there are others that feel this way, let's have the discussion >> here to try to change my mind, I suppose. Failing that, there's >> an appeal process. I will say that when there's a currently >> chartered and active working group in a particular space (json), >> it would be really odd to do work on that protocol in a different >> working group (xmpp). >> >>> 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). >> >> That part of the discussion is also in scope. Changing *JSON >> itself* is the only thing I'm declaring out of scope for this >> wg. >> >>> 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. >> >> Setting up a competitor to JSON is not in this group's charter. >> We don't have to use JSON, but if we do, we'll have a normative >> reference to the JSON RFC. >> >>> Anyway, I've just wanted to provide a maybe useful comment for >>> POSH and don't want to discuss JSON. >> >> Let's continue that discussion then. Is there anyone else that >> thinks that comments are important in POSH? Are those comments >> more important than using JSON? Can we come up with a format >> that includes comments in a JSON-compatible manner? >> >> -- Joe Hildebrand >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ xmpp mailing >> list xmpp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > > _______________________________________________ xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS6m+zAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1r4IIAI+/MgKzDl1Jdps6oqCdF3AO Bn0gwobcV8zXU8jMrgEdW3HbuydzHYLdo19hIN8AK7gJeZSZQrMuczKlxCnsfIDW x85b1heSaB1z1H3DmJlBE/1LF4BwRroJ8mEnvtVPbqn758r7lKNwjWUaH03qvL7Z USV8nBZuA1FNvx8+VxJh/2xE6eYiShMmyVCyJDbCA7eR72WLZj4vzh4syg8htvEk d/FGlbwQjn51C/87mhU/fEKCWsjelOTP3NlmRr2U/uVLPGgUU6aoBww+UobXU9Vk KR7mFAY7YKwRW3ZA2bFNTiHsAwPEVF5hOIXLxn8X+egP3EdEZuN9d68H6UwvO1s= =/m++ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Philipp Hancke
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Matthew Wild
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Tobias Markmann
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Alexander Holler
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Tobias Markmann
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Alexander Holler
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Alexander Holler
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Dave Cridland
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Ben Campbell
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Alexander Holler
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Lance Stout
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Matt Miller
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Alexander Holler
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Kevin Smith
- Re: [xmpp] Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH Ben Campbell