From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Feb 17 12:05:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0FB21F86C6 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:05:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ukoxa9dn4RLu for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5540A21E8054 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:05:42 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:05:41 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:05:40 -0800 Thread-Topic: JSON vs. XML Thread-Index: Acztr4XgwNl3X3NkQIG0uEwPGmaKjQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDFFEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:05:44 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDFFEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With respect to the JSON vs. XML question for REPUTE, the same debate is cu= rrently raging over on the WEIRDS list. We can possibly learn from the arg= ument happening over there in terms of resolving that question in this cont= ext. -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDFFEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

With respect to = the JSON vs. XML question for REPUTE, the same debate is currently raging o= ver on the WEIRDS list. We can possibly learn from the argument happe= ning over there in terms of resolving that question in this context.

-MSK=

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DDFFEXCHC2corpclo_-- From dhc@dcrocker.net Fri Feb 17 15:09:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C90321F8681 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:09:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z2w2NorqpBGe for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C290E21F8680 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.58.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1HN9JYn025579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:09:24 -0800 Message-ID: <4F3EDE1B.6020706@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:09:15 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120208 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:09:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:09:25 -0000 On 2/17/2012 12:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > With respect to the JSON vs. XML question for REPUTE, the same debate is > currently raging over on the WEIRDS list. We can possibly learn from the > argument happening over there in terms of resolving that question in this context. I thought the discussion in our group was pretty rationale and thorough. Perhaps /they/ should learn from /us/? Or do they have some additional insights? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Feb 17 15:13:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E260221F85B4 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uhGJJjEF4Z-d for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A07B21F859A for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:13:55 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:13:56 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:13:55 -0800 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML Thread-Index: AcztyTV9Tt7S+aGYTrOk4I2mKYxsgAAAIXSw Message-ID: References: <4F3EDE1B.6020706@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4F3EDE1B.6020706@dcrocker.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:13:57 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of Dave CROCKER > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:09 PM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML >=20 > I thought the discussion in our group was pretty rationale and thorough. > Perhaps /they/ should learn from /us/? It's certainly the case that we might learn how NOT to solve this problem f= or repute. :-) But I was just suggesting that someone over there might think of some angle= we over here hadn't considered yet. From dotis@mail-abuse.org Fri Feb 17 15:25:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C6D11E809F for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:25:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3aLNhwCWZ0c for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:25:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserv.mail-abuse.org (mailserv.mail-abuse.org [150.70.98.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B605311E808D for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:25:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from us-sherryl-e64k.us.trendnet.org (unknown [10.31.37.9]) by mailserv.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3122217401D8 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:25:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F3EE1F8.2020806@mail-abuse.org> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:25:44 -0800 From: Douglas Otis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4F3EDE1B.6020706@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:25:46 -0000 On 2/17/12 3:13 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:09 PM >> To: domainrep@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML >> >> I thought the discussion in our group was pretty rationale and thorough. >> Perhaps /they/ should learn from /us/? > It's certainly the case that we might learn how NOT to solve this problem for repute. :-) > > But I was just suggesting that someone over there might think of some angle we over here hadn't considered yet. Dear Murray, JSON offers more efficient data encapsulation important for DNS or CoRE related applications. Our own internal processing uses similar inversion of the name space so string sorting will group domains according to name hierarchy. XML lacks these important advantages. Regards, Douglas Otis From johnl@iecc.com Fri Feb 17 17:34:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5CC11E80C0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:34:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.807, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4RUJl0V+nfwY for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:34:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FD711E8086 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:34:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 7352 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2012 01:34:08 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2012 01:34:08 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4f3f0010.xn--hew.k1202; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=8wO5LYphnZLOKsxNkfCu2hxJe3lNvyBtDUdq36c8vu4=; b=XKM+d57Spp0z5yoWRv7kjlSeJ8BFwXg4xIqVBvmknEGAFSSm6JM0/+xbKSEJe6Ke3UTDqLqeN4HHx3ur/bnR3vhrQRsb0L+JwwlYfYErfe4kPuhhmIl3WykWK7Shq2DmjPuv0lX+HqWHsL3N7MIMNseqJQXhvBAVEcewup9a0Tw= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 18 Feb 2012 01:33:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20120218013346.84191.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: domainrep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4F3EDE1B.6020706@dcrocker.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [domainrep] JSON vs. XML X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:34:10 -0000 >I thought the discussion in our group was pretty rational and thorough. >Perhaps /they/ should learn from /us/? > >Or do they have some additional insights? I got the insight that the people who want to build something that works and ship it think that JSON is fine, while the ones who want to have endless meetings to debate data dictionaries and multiple open ended data formats think that XML is essential. Or did you mean something else? R's, John From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Feb 23 13:37:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A81E21F889C for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:37:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gGyMeY4Anib2 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DF321F888F for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.101.2.93] (64.1.211.245.ptr.us.xo.net [64.1.211.245]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1NLbYWL016575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:37:39 -0800 Message-ID: <4F46B197.2020702@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:37:27 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: <20120223202850.6004.96801.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120223202850.6004.96801.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120223202850.6004.96801.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:37:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [domainrep] Fwd: repute - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 83 X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:37:40 -0000 FYI. Also, we will have a Meetecho channel, to facilitate remote participation. d/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: repute - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 83 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:28:50 -0800 From: "IETF Secretariat" To: dcrocker@bbiw.net CC: repute-ads@tools.ietf.org, repute-chairs@tools.ietf.org, wlo@amsl.com Dear Dave Crocker, The sessions that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. repute Session 1 (1.5 hours) Wednesday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500 Room Name: 243 -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net