Subject: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-snell-merge-patch

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 14:10:06 -0700

This is a call for adoption for draft-snell-merge-patch.  The document had
a thread of discussion in January, and some prior, that showed some
interest within this working group, and it appears to be material that
falls within our charter.  Accordingly, we'll adopt this as a working group
item within the next couple of weeks unless there's objection to such
processing.  I will act as document shepherd.

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: R S <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 22:50:53 -0700

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>wrote:

>  we'll adopt this as a working group item within the next couple of weeks
> unless there's objection to such processing.
>

Object absent explicit support from WG members. If that support is stated,
then no objection.

- Rob

---

From: "Manger, James H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:02:50 +1000

I support progressing draft-snell-merge-patch.
The almost-established JSON working group<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-json/> would be an even better venue than here (apps-discuss) for this draft — or at least it would have been if the charter for the JSON WG didn’t add process impediments (“only after initial work is done”, “must recharter”).

--
James Manger

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013 7:10 AM
To: IETF Apps Discuss
Subject: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-snell-merge-patch

This is a call for adoption for draft-snell-merge-patch.  The document had a thread of discussion in January, and some prior, that showed some interest within this working group, and it appears to be material that falls within our charter.  Accordingly, we'll adopt this as a working group item within the next couple of weeks unless there's objection to such processing.  I will act as document shepherd.
-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:34:42 +1000

> This is a call for adoption for draft-snell-merge-patch.  The document had a thread of discussion in January, and some prior, that showed some interest within this working group, and it appears to…

I'm +1, *if* it aligns with what people seem to be doing out there.

See:
  https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/10439
  https://github.com/documentcloud/backbone/issues/2512

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 06:58:06 -0700

> I'm +1, *if* it aligns with what people seem to be doing out there.

On that note, it ought to be pointed out that merge-patch is a
formalization of an existing deployed scheme:
https://developers.google.com/blogger/docs/3.0/performance?hl=en#patch

- James

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:34:46 -0700

FYI... A ruby implementation by Steve Klabnik...
  https://github.com/steveklabnik/json-merge_patch

- James

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This is a call for adoption for draft-snell-merge-patch.  The document had a
> thread of discussion in January, and some prior, that showed some interest
> within this working group, and it appears to be material that falls within
> our charter.  Accordingly, we'll adopt this as a working group item within
> the next couple of weeks unless there's objection to such processing.  I
> will act as document shepherd.
>
> -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair
>