From nobody Sun Jul 17 01:36:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F83C12D1A2 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:36:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 V-zi-RMHqmgk for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (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 833B212B012 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f6so51362010ith.0 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:36:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nj3tS07w7IkAxQOoaxWIQyoTSp19tEo+i0cAU4cd2GY=; b=X3flHm5sxrxSKxdoS2Axc9LNyHAoTf2OrZBqWQPBwOvX75AP3UCZAVl9yinADgcTLc yAj+iTcuT+hWmPqjanqViMdt6ma//lrMraFtJwpQA3lmHoeln0PVaX5jOIVQ+QjShNMS dWrab20/9YY3wPySQ+x7a4igXdQ1bGMrlVL44JbbATp/wIdv4eh9llvDWAKwxnOsRdpC En3Wp5HLdCob50RN4LfEZWwNtMYe3NCBtVhEXRPv5MHGCOVYAO/uwW2Cm1zeuSZOOTNf uprBvusN8wYPI/BmmXwn7X4EVUFffzx+dFBhhVazaOZUx6fBWJRx25sV0QubTvoeq3Eq nTrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nj3tS07w7IkAxQOoaxWIQyoTSp19tEo+i0cAU4cd2GY=; b=MQtIqWpju5J4tcVv++yxCxDH6ImQXyX9A3fpEwXnq3cK5bM4H6c0Yz1egwL84KpyHE rUV2XwIclc7GiHRu6CpPjoUhEMdIiwhKM4fxV8pw+9h+LH05lblFqR+iXktCf+wkdI6N gcqt2oYqp60lSlFLQI+G/EglnCkw57NJfT//8OWVbsNmUHJXWfo44M3Pwlu13ZuylqNp 5v4PjjLz1O8WzDvm9rW6aP9zGLtdGwFqkwvpUNxm+PeqnTzKz76ruPZXzr2JVcwkxw68 +GZqy5DEzm6d2us3HaYLndoTZ47lHSTyJj1m8T5ONdqA/Ungs6A3nUuQq79vgAVRgXuk EktA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLu0rWuDkQm/hjpQtB0aQ2qmq1tBwgfvLKqM1KdcH5dZxCeSsHyykYFBbx5SCW631HXsQ3czOU1WksX0w== X-Received: by 10.36.60.148 with SMTP id m142mr27320624ita.96.1468744564894; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:36:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.153.78 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 01:36:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160616034238.26185.479.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <73bcf544-b2f6-da98-2e73-65654b1bc328@it.aoyama.ac.jp> From: Barry Leiba Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:36:04 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UcQ25lzzK_bimgZMEmxweoEKFjU Message-ID: To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" , "Matt Miller (mamille2)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:36:07 -0000 Another month gap/stall... Have we checked with TC 39? Are we still moving forward? Barry On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > It should help that we=E2=80=99ve got a draft that says the right thing n= ow. Matt, with your TC39 liaison hat on, maybe you can forward it to them = and see what their schedule is looking like? Ideally, we=E2=80=99d be able= to publish both documents in roughly the same timeframe. > > -- > Joe Hildebrand > > > On 6/16/16, 11:48 PM, "json on behalf of Martin J. D=C3=BCrst" wrote: > >>On 2016/06/17 07:00, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >>>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 14:26, Barry Leiba wrote= : >> >>>> As the former AD who was part of sorting this out with ECMA: >>>> They are supposed to do the same, putting something in their docs that >>>> points to ours and says something similar about having the two specs >>>> remain converged. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks Barry. Yes, this is what has been agreed to by Ecma TC39. >> >>Not specific for this, but just a general comment based on experience >>from collaboration between different standardization organizations: >>Don't expect this to happen overnight. Each organization works at their >>own cycles and pace. >> >>Regards, Martin. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>json mailing list >>json@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From nobody Mon Jul 18 04:36:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195B512D8E6 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:36:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 IE_jRkojqkBu for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 9E26112D0B7 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id i5so112283654wmg.0 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:36:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pLbX4/DMP37CcWlE5th/qaY/OoAiWmUUeFAnwvak91o=; b=yFExbPjzmGWb+UT067Wx+ijl6N/hCmxVuUiZc3q1QgkHDtRXbJexfcMoUeiqT9rpTT 72yuMGtoktQCjQif/n+fiDLBf/3MLebyZkUk0+UwZtjUoEKiXlAYB80/PAYfl5jqyDrP JHNbYTRbQZcFZn42EpvwHOQ2riEI6g04z5AFNhKaDfq8m1ApfNpp0qbUDaYGMHGXCoUK VXEjCgsLeAaoPopa71F/zq40x2b9+GzA4oW5ErRsDxRtQzWoaZMZ1V/gCHSNBf+vnkUO OcvGiU05MenF4GqVWz27s3/M/P7LutbtmU2XqfVsccJd7zRxHA1xQO1rusA1bnAKSEgm BjTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pLbX4/DMP37CcWlE5th/qaY/OoAiWmUUeFAnwvak91o=; b=FjknN30eLli48+9SEm5namwqqYf+CEFmprik7V8v8EJctzFzD8yTX22RY5aSIPdMZB tUHCgF4UedRG83Q6+xeFimRGYwmayiSLjKJ0ikXPYtKzWCDyurulJMLM4yJaJ9cl1vwh Kd+Xevvd3FeUVXVcur8pqirZJuEP7Hu9cICNNN/71F8Grtuh6VduK2D32icRO0U3EcUT GG7GW/hniYH5g0T9J7JJcKIs8IT8JZWrOoNFvb1S6e2YWyy8ox+ey7Gu9z84cHA1p3ry t4UlsY2R1QWlXXxw45CzfidUVyjAgqhcYHRaImCwvE36Bz1HmUxPXTIH0I7P+PjKmDjm f2mQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIz0A28w1lODo7LmcEyFLfoTRNUWm1cGOLQQSu6Ou+ZnTQtiM4dCu54gf9ZkRYT/g== X-Received: by 10.28.44.131 with SMTP id s125mr35893400wms.61.1468841781165; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.79] (124.25.176.95.rev.sfr.net. [95.176.25.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r127sm3344616wmf.23.2016.07.18.04.36.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:36:20 -0700 (PDT) To: Barry Leiba , "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" , "Matt Miller (mamille2)" References: <20160616034238.26185.479.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <73bcf544-b2f6-da98-2e73-65654b1bc328@it.aoyama.ac.jp> From: Anders Rundgren Message-ID: <464ab68e-9c17-722a-8d80-3f888459c6d7@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:36:15 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Tim Bray , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:36:26 -0000 On 2016-07-17 10:36, Barry Leiba wrote: > Another month gap/stall... > Have we checked with TC 39? Are we still moving forward? ECMA's JSON specification is redundant with respect to the developer community. ECMA's JSON serialization specification OTOH, is quite useful [1] and has no IETF counterpart. Anders 1] https://cyberphone.github.io/openkeystore/resources/docs/jcs.html#ECMAScript_Compatibility_Mode > > Barry > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) > wrote: >> It should help that we’ve got a draft that says the right thing now. Matt, with your TC39 liaison hat on, maybe you can forward it to them and see what their schedule is looking like? Ideally, we’d be able to publish both documents in roughly the same timeframe. >> >> -- >> Joe Hildebrand >> >> >> On 6/16/16, 11:48 PM, "json on behalf of Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> >>> On 2016/06/17 07:00, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >>>>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 14:26, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> >>>>> As the former AD who was part of sorting this out with ECMA: >>>>> They are supposed to do the same, putting something in their docs that >>>>> points to ours and says something similar about having the two specs >>>>> remain converged. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Barry. Yes, this is what has been agreed to by Ecma TC39. >>> >>> Not specific for this, but just a general comment based on experience >> >from collaboration between different standardization organizations: >>> Don't expect this to happen overnight. Each organization works at their >>> own cycles and pace. >>> >>> Regards, Martin. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> json mailing list >>> json@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > From nobody Mon Jul 18 05:40:48 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C418912B069 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:40:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 q0L7zLM_hyVY for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA6B912B032 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:40:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2985; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468845644; x=1470055244; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=06VgH8TSNT+c7QjREpOEbz2SwzzJT2GKcpdKV6+zECY=; b=cRpq4whbM+O4OE91US2wfD59Rd5Ii7eJrfpBNw2QnxnewsFDTGEjjna2 6HF2EtOv5Gn4z5gwmdi+ai6szmhoW/KbfM7lRq2d6SqqXEX8UHWrn/Yab XHKmkWJSqBZXEsn8RtgLte3jqsLCZCVFOFcVfP8MJap75kFadUbW7JaxW A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BqAgD2zYxX/4MNJK1bgz9WfAa4dYF5I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV4AoE0OBQBAQEBAQEBZSeEXAEBBAEBASFLCwULAgEIGCoCAicLJQIEDgUOiBo?= =?us-ascii?q?IDrA3jW0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEOCQWIIoJVh0Ergi8FmSICAYM2g?= =?us-ascii?q?W6JOgqBYY1Mhl+JPgEeNoNzboY/fwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,383,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="298434423" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Jul 2016 12:40:43 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6ICehcM009011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:40:43 GMT Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:40:43 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:40:42 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHRx4EwF4LbEztrsESZSZB6P9hXPJ/ryCGAgAAALYCAARcYAIAAGoCAgACClACAAMGOAIAuk0kAgAHWrAA= Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:40:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160616034238.26185.479.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <73bcf544-b2f6-da98-2e73-65654b1bc328@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.100.254] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E70148C5-297C-47B3-9729-53BDCBA56088"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Tim Bray , "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:40:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E70148C5-297C-47B3-9729-53BDCBA56088 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Ecma TC39 will publish an update to ECMA-404 shortly after the = rfc7159bis is published. -- - m&m Matt Miller Cisco Systems, Inc. > On Jul 17, 2016, at 10:36, Barry Leiba = wrote: >=20 > Another month gap/stall... > Have we checked with TC 39? Are we still moving forward? >=20 > Barry >=20 > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) > wrote: >> It should help that we=E2=80=99ve got a draft that says the right = thing now. Matt, with your TC39 liaison hat on, maybe you can forward = it to them and see what their schedule is looking like? Ideally, we=E2=80= =99d be able to publish both documents in roughly the same timeframe. >>=20 >> -- >> Joe Hildebrand >>=20 >>=20 >> On 6/16/16, 11:48 PM, "json on behalf of Martin J. D=C3=BCrst" = wrote: >>=20 >>> On 2016/06/17 07:00, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >>>>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 14:26, Barry Leiba = wrote: >>>=20 >>>>> As the former AD who was part of sorting this out with ECMA: >>>>> They are supposed to do the same, putting something in their docs = that >>>>> points to ours and says something similar about having the two = specs >>>>> remain converged. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks Barry. Yes, this is what has been agreed to by Ecma TC39. >>>=20 >>> Not specific for this, but just a general comment based on = experience >>> from collaboration between different standardization organizations: >>> Don't expect this to happen overnight. Each organization works at = their >>> own cycles and pace. >>>=20 >>> Regards, Martin. >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> json mailing list >>> json@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json --Apple-Mail=_E70148C5-297C-47B3-9729-53BDCBA56088 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXjM5IAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1nLkH/1zrHCPn6Yry5baoKjOznyzT rRtHwZEBKih3iBBNnpsMJSqSXXkUMoMiujrjCdeM5RQfgOfDEV+XOpDuAW0wn+7b qNw/msQ6qWza8LZDYVJCLeABL+ueFtBe5e0PMyq99wNUHFXdyv6K+aMpSgFFmmT4 A0m4LZwBuKePhoK9rnxVRUDxBowzpx1XhrCbQovI02AXZbHIT8vGoaz3j2tf9oR6 I4wPPhzxYqegzH6EVySb4jKD/GmZmlv1jKzwYZcoGOrytm9UaTzB9vviPo6hIPfP bUQZfAarEVg3omZ2lJJsSrjvUOTO9/RpfSLU7fOEq+gvi2ecseLjAU50abxVv/4= =jT0y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E70148C5-297C-47B3-9729-53BDCBA56088-- From nobody Mon Jul 18 05:59:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F97A12DA07; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:59:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 rtbux1uOwPv2; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFE3B12DA08; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:58:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1377; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468846739; x=1470056339; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=8vm5oKL0VL7UC9arh6bdKFc414ZBGtHrEVcaoUt8yDI=; b=icIS2VTHr/GfEcFYzbddSPJkUIuBQCcGAMj8URIr6acI9fUUSvwDDve2 WRzK5lzEwcDu8xAOLFVxIBRTGOMOn8I13OEjbfsA+iiVWlQACiZYLhLIt kcR0QP/QYcqHovPSAU9aKMPFe264UcBGG4TWxkYxVEuENIAlF0Qdv6SQV 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BpAgAy0oxX/4cNJK1bgz+BUga4dYF5h?= =?us-ascii?q?hqBNjgUAQEBAQEBAWUcC4RjeRIBgQAUEwQOBQ6IIr43AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBDg6IIopBgi8FmSICAYM2gW6JOoFVARWEWYhzkB0BHjaDc26GP38BA?= =?us-ascii?q?QE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,384,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="125295204" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Jul 2016 12:58:58 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6ICwwTY013813 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:58:58 GMT Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:58:57 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:58:58 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: "json@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 Thread-Index: AQHR4PQlEOMCehqa3UCebgz64XLSyQ== Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:58:57 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.100.254] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_66139722-FF8E-4B92-8160-FC6324A0F1B7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:59:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_66139722-FF8E-4B92-8160-FC6324A0F1B7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello all, This starts the Working Group Last Call of = draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02, ending on July 31. Please send all comments to this list (json@ietf.org) or the draft = author/editor (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org). Any and all = comments are welcome, including simple statements that this document is = ready to progress. Thank you, - JSONbis Chair --Apple-Mail=_66139722-FF8E-4B92-8160-FC6324A0F1B7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXjNKQAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1FwAH/iO7jHSU0396F/0cxkWconnq WRz1xaZm4NzJHXKjGNIUP5kOLqPoqAErtur8tbzO5urT55OCPj7Vlk8at1cXy5xP wSAh0N6XqqdlolrEX08nIDw88/VGMRHIvFNBThi7fOjeu+VS/xx0TK8Srbg0rDaq 1Eq0WoyIQYzwvVh3ZuNq5bzP29lzY/qIfEBjiPduwm5dj8XkcXq1+Uqyz1l+EdZL 3jSiZXzm0ekp/HS5Yt+A8WWOaOInMfwmdZYG5iqFy9Aum5zsarr7kn0qCW9S+rV8 sfoYHZ+IVY5sigodVi/UfEVcvT4tfs/pqbV45uoyFzZr8Cxi1zxgpDbZobkxdyQ= =vKKM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_66139722-FF8E-4B92-8160-FC6324A0F1B7-- From nobody Mon Jul 18 07:29:29 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0268612DFCA; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 t_xZNFkdHSth; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (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 A0D3912DFD5; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id u186so68627614ita.0; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:54:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IBOyMrBlBAe1yFZGn4EHpH9RsHeg5rDd4GXN8iSoRbc=; b=Wjy4EBXP92JW9GhzoEI26foRiu2ke3Vs+Gk8sQXuOOkAtKrgMyy3erFf1xaQ8wEj4d Lt4MnXaVt6EXFwatndjIqga+CaVnX0zmF9dER1ldBG/s97vWShBmz4I7IYCIbTM+HUJU u54tf26yCSAzsyaZUKD0U+X8G1sEPZv4JCtUHM3Km1k3M7Nwq9GSEkMgdyBKis+HvLPA AEXuCCGO461gMsvlYKtthKiN28TPjxZIUTHAs5OBsG/wcPRDts7Kxtoe77Qt34GePyph 2s0WFHo5PgOG5ixcdeh5ON9sNmiOMbr0m0yHcvbvxCUYlalwCiKOQopAErbojDS72OjG 4vEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IBOyMrBlBAe1yFZGn4EHpH9RsHeg5rDd4GXN8iSoRbc=; b=RSZuRc+k5NGol+FYAuLaBlskoBQGOxJuAOyYwEdVIkcFRWhuAyk0oGGIoj9m7fhmz+ AM3t76+0ZxbfPJhGavCQuOigN99yPoWKc18/DHlAa7w0hbM7kakIO2agflctPyLZW1Jo xISk94AIdz5q2W0NDP5MFCZoQ9R5S0zegGbBBqBmJI0cIvICHkQJb3cnjB6WyIywxjcR oxfPOFlGZPcIMRkWyevUbu0P8pSBFeWWXt2DttjpTcNlQ6XUl6Oce+sGBvx5M+0MOcgB NXD7i+ggC0Nw5VXWeOyhzyW8Ofpg4Zv8mMxuBWCSaqvfyz63gfHOUNKEG+NDFoLltm38 YSbA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJOXEgdSCgavafTaiOsOEsNwrg15a01PQCC3EYUtL/A6qkwlO1BtZF+CwcspVHo6Q== X-Received: by 10.36.103.4 with SMTP id u4mr48523712itc.88.1468850093673; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([199.4.160.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b3sm1325255itg.17.2016.07.18.06.54.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:54:52 -0700 (PDT) To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" , "json@ietf.org" References: From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Message-ID: <1e137fbf-6d67-d9b4-acbf-b53291c7bd40@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:54:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:29:17 -0000 My understanding is that ECMA 404 is about to undergo a change, and this change is important to the changes in rfc7159bis. If this is the case, then I believe that rfc7159bis should not have gone to last call, as one of the document's normative references is in flux and there is no pointer in the document to even a draft of the new version of the normative document. Ideally rfc7159bis should not go to last call until there is the equivalent of a last call version of the revised ECMA 404. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 07/18/2016 05:58 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > Hello all, > > This starts the Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02, ending on July 31. > > Please send all comments to this list (json@ietf.org) or the draft author/editor (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org). Any and all comments are welcome, including simple statements that this document is ready to progress. > > > Thank you, > > - JSONbis Chair > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > From nobody Mon Jul 18 07:41:18 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F49C12DE1B; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 C7I_P8JP4lu5; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9888012DB27; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [31.133.176.193] ([31.133.176.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LrevR-1bD5yF3HmX-013P2F; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:11:42 +0200 To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" , "json@ietf.org" References: From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: <876b2dda-340c-c0e6-6323-a736a1e8e504@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:11:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:4fMFRtHnKTzbPhHhS4DXb5iYhqp+uBI63UOkKUQ8gva3Yvbf6UB hapWTxrEgcK/PyNMf8TPc75YnAVPCPQXpOOM1Xer9VCMd8GPJz0+/m9sk1fLnGUvopzIx2c 4UVPxhBS9MmIJOvUcG953E77V/pHgR3LP4AwVNszFrtpfMjAkjyhN21WNHENepS+oIL2UJo YDfckE23nQjOdT+kC3hmg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:PBISXg1huXc=:V/PVz8EpEaXmzXHseJ0EkQ 6yw7Y7+CODIULC8EgCiU/jAG75+HXjD8ZUax0rBoWJvE8Ly61M4Qqa4YwbHRrBGy2XJIZQdV0 8QjxUKps3dfU5IvZIAkK5BIm0I6DO4WQ/0FCs7DnjoRAv3WmcilqSk99bqCq+y0zVFeonT0hp JgC7Rt89dC5FqJs1u+jOrV4Z/V1OF3EhMKDJWwOBS72HtztxUEEeSmq+g6zDZitnzmSwgNKwH LZwgkVVtx/f6lpSEHYseA/eGZeJFyrdEu+CfjPf6Gc7O4Lm4xdK7zSilu+ScCUKZRWDNK4Wy4 zIfAgdsv0dqaLZGEndVkpMqW+DhqRT/GNosmqpX/bzxUCeOvu14hRtPMONimDDMogzV1ep8yG IrQMzjqzObnKz2aAKX+l51NG1aBIA1uo/NzjUzMZw4THPUZP27hzUI+3vnZTRJ/NzP6hydaZE m+LuJxT1edPUiXuPovRpHR0SWw6JaY1kvGaOSvdKcCGhqsDeTq2Uigs3c+Pru9+BfMEW6w7yu pOnKSCFZf7yOIL1M/NsrN/18ve6WEmZxdIzt/6a8oFDpuAHWK/dUHLEPOxxr2Vk8cq60QmiD2 cb1qIozWolhoywoo6WAiw0hy+pYHBOhBELkhdZAhEL7Rc1rnZM3HVz7YKcKBULROeUQ0enR6f 56Y4qfGjyvTQtA/TVe4a24eAFnCekSsUF5a1Kvnsml0KSmd8ShtAxi7GlJEAospKPoJJpsXds +V48Ny/dS6HHFXKwz8Mg92MtD5SzofLDxFbsQyEIJU3g0PTqe1J6U5cj/M+wZVbB22oJEb2Qy eLFeMKN Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:41:16 -0000 Hi there, I believe this document needs an Appendix (next to Appendix A) which summarizes what's actually different from RFC 7159. Best regards, Julian From nobody Mon Jul 18 08:11:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D9812DB3C; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 YHGhu4SU8Ba0; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 D557812DCCF; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id i5so120302342wmg.0; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:45:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kJfu0/SB5+384aHG5+MFR3hQ9VKXeQZWqxyzbO0Omgw=; b=i4zg/LFEAiz05IYDyY700OSQWZBByaYJDKZJOWeceKgzaUoqCAcEj5W41NF30CurAO Viie6Vuhni55EWYZIPxTLnxyUFoGeBX+bsZ/ZTCerd39KM1FFgJyGZlKAL5vYtHS4eqw nhjUOPvQvJUoXvZUDdSFxCRWZaQ9tGPjgBm/sofTNFnbpSg+Mk9e4hNoFxp81QzDb2H0 Hyy7C9nvDbPJ0WCiFeSo2ru8nSQ8dRfMd+m3DFols8JzVxACNngqDBdlY5PPtkimke/R 5RZeUdTfJhQBo1eXJ9/HnJueWsL+rZM03jewv4Sufr/eSYeokTO+SGqKK+e6ZmSSwbB6 TLEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kJfu0/SB5+384aHG5+MFR3hQ9VKXeQZWqxyzbO0Omgw=; b=F6Ci0JwZ9fh5yFAT1MgqaG0xPIYyn5+cpaFK1yvo0IusJS7QqoLWCymz0oFot5JNOw 80P00yxEJDwt3YXb9ypRznWuItZbo/n6ifm3JxV1LnwhekvKe37tgWgsH0+Bq6xIauIc 4rKXz+dUkyk7hyr1Se2wjsHpcRskehZUeSDuqc4lHeEgyvYBnu5GjEXJT0JzOWI+EWQW TBcRgF7NEzyk8qhvMTyCpgEv0ZPQtEdSSe9wF1yS2z/CPZF/vwyqRg4AZbHPiRTV4H+p WHGGbf6pPCbgDPKeA2BpZBD7a0Z6ae8kLqkhODtmvb85Nl1JDENktcNuNgxIJd7o/DrF +Qsg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKPnbh18xh9bNYmQ9xoWAnOhLsTq7jqO/op5fCaTN7BWcmgFa4kj0/jRxvv0ucy7g== X-Received: by 10.28.30.1 with SMTP id e1mr27247805wme.77.1468853145446; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.79] (124.25.176.95.rev.sfr.net. [95.176.25.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id bc1sm1648274wjc.35.2016.07.18.07.45.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:45:44 -0700 (PDT) To: Julian Reschke , "Matt Miller (mamille2)" , "json@ietf.org" References: <876b2dda-340c-c0e6-6323-a736a1e8e504@gmx.de> From: Anders Rundgren Message-ID: <9aa67689-aeba-4b28-86c2-04bd03e8941b@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:45:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <876b2dda-340c-c0e6-6323-a736a1e8e504@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:11:37 -0000 On 2016-07-18 16:11, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi there, > > I believe this document needs an Appendix (next to Appendix A) which > summarizes what's actually different from RFC 7159. This gives a whole new meaning to the word "normative"... Anders > > Best regards, Julian > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > From nobody Mon Jul 18 08:13:03 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6229F12DCDB for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:13:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=WN96RQ+H; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=dqNp/Anu 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 1FtwMQAtwKAZ for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE1812DEAA for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18407209DE for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web2 ([10.202.2.212]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:48:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=BmadZEqa5EAXCf+vCaCdPN13vWE=; b=WN96RQ +HKTM4u/C90bJBpiS6Nla9KLtIPs0VCYrTxM+8tMMiJJ3NGoLMLmTI/8Sn8qjdwl fKAebrRbiKRH1C7u5cq4KNSDQVNWhl7bPH2Civwiq5BiQqE3YAXOy1d4KmgStEBd 4Rl913SpF92qW+TrobiyX9bGe5v5HAu/+Q6tI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=BmadZEqa5EAXCf+ vCaCdPN13vWE=; b=dqNp/AnuJ36Vyb2E5zE9MBBeHzleRQQ8zY9zHTLll7fiE8b v1AeEcVoADPTnovn/tI6PtgHueN69nezkO1gy1yVf2901anPgavf/3DzcIu8FFZF g+wwAYpDo2ISI8Uk9Dq3Zkhcug6yXfGVObeY+ie0jot0iocEmc3C2wKXpMDo= Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id C9455D01C3; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1468853282.937413.669539185.65D8F56E@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: KDS1mp665rBL8RYfOoTsQeHMJY74yjiz/NiY1cm2UUfh 1468853282 From: Alexey Melnikov To: json@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-6fae4dd4 Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:48:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: <876b2dda-340c-c0e6-6323-a736a1e8e504@gmx.de> References: <876b2dda-340c-c0e6-6323-a736a1e8e504@gmx.de> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:13:02 -0000 On Mon, Jul 18, 2016, at 03:11 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi there, > > I believe this document needs an Appendix (next to Appendix A) which > summarizes what's actually different from RFC 7159. Correct, this is an IETF requirement on all -bis documents. From nobody Mon Jul 18 08:28:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6222512D649; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:28:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 RTc9erD_cSyh; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9AB812DE66; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [31.133.176.193] ([31.133.176.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MFR2O-1bbDPu0jdE-00ELZb; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:11:50 +0200 To: Anders Rundgren , "Matt Miller (mamille2)" , "json@ietf.org" References: <876b2dda-340c-c0e6-6323-a736a1e8e504@gmx.de> <9aa67689-aeba-4b28-86c2-04bd03e8941b@gmail.com> From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:11:50 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9aa67689-aeba-4b28-86c2-04bd03e8941b@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:0p7zcxMBeE5eRdYmg3UEnNd+bgT+vkob/tFU8mgZJS70eQiRF2N shrQ60tDhK4G9+ALY80LC+poPvJwbCfJB65yAcmJ1t/n2NB2w+bhovtNhvO2FlAyIMBOazX AOYGeR6spiDHp73vcYxifeQEp2Pc4Vm4p2G8fW+MeWdJtHaIGOhnGvv6/R/uXmd/BbvsiFt QHSgseH99jFa8vwy4iFcA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:jF2696YcVuo=:tZjGgg6M1XXhi5WgXGyt1r D3ENjPuRojHrYV8NOMLhBsIvlvFMiX4gDIqWGEEfbGcKLm3zg9TOI2u1aDSti5QHCUTX0NnQh AyJhXbfFcPIb2oiwEb+QdPe2VnYVehtDPivoh9AOVK3Bn/Ua4RSfB5Wd5nzwsxSmfGDtYRp9r SEd+mGlgulW5BkUkeFlS2T/gxdlMcH0kvicaZZWc6rog/QMryTrQeCDEVijJ2l/11ZbKkrMjd COK0lTW4ehDYxhw4RMupj2CE+wvHA+bhOLoH2pXAi3QYsdz5+vVb76Ig81pJr9iXYGd9/pJpe TOWcK+GDftiz0qZVDYuGjIR99MV1yj8BuNTmT3JkFl3s5VdnM7w9A2FVL8OQjOhXfk1WcoJLQ sluT9n7ZgwLkMhdMlid8DcL9NJ+cJYgYJG0WFjcVkjkstVIngXOF69C5AATrTezKB6kstt6jx NLswRfiNEpa9q0fq9JCpruxunIKzPHqeeTzWhwLgBg4W3Sw8XkUkpPPxmJUk4c7q+N2TlsPtN GJ+nuJpBDpArK3ONIYCdP0kCtQFiX3dLfngcQzlcsaxONi6dxO4ZWMNlc6VA07H2uHm4e6rFj bLboKlJGW22gtVrRowrRgS4gC6HSPkCpIKGKfC8fJ3reOFJ5asm5f4zVfzdxAnoRbXCmTFUtu WsoqCWR1GsQ2yigKrJeKSN3pDyz+jmeidsH4ZU33LZZkBTJLA631sKvh9kcckXnHYZeOBJqtZ 3Lz4nnCBTgzNyMxPn8mrjBkNLSFYQK1heEYNcUaHxOaehNYlSu7YQDSWO3pLFFr68jjqzcuZ+ ASUfo/a Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:28:57 -0000 On 2016-07-18 16:45, Anders Rundgren wrote: > On 2016-07-18 16:11, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> I believe this document needs an Appendix (next to Appendix A) which >> summarizes what's actually different from RFC 7159. > > This gives a whole new meaning to the word "normative"... > > Anders Looking at , the information is actually there (in Section 1.3). But it is still weird that we have an appendix for one but not the other. To clarify, I'm looking specifically at the change in (yeah for anchors in the HTML diff!). Best regards, Julian From nobody Mon Jul 18 08:34:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766EA12DA5B; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:34:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 HdXeal77H0-d; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 616C912DB8C; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f65so107673719wmi.0; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:19:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lOV4zib5kyI/PG0VeFtV8hL9BCu/CJ/xYblI7RRtcj8=; b=mg9XC/+trSLu3E3iOKDiLEcyYXpueJLo8rDMXA1ROqkcr36FBa4bJNvTpPVW/2kzFA J5k640eY+OItvpVFjGirtrxh/xQu0qD8mr8M14/NSNJ3n6QmOvrCho8JRY1GzyuHRMAO X2wLECX/qPpoJcKHrw3502biWTDfWctC5DwBDp/o5yDBkur6vGHHxq5O3gDWtUspBA/w LYO60D3+nw7SnEoEseODmoiNr1jyg/9f9mPp/ZEONahXIvUJIeisd329yeEKj3cBkI9m jbNruRFPVeMEgHuZ28Oxx7HD9YJE0lOoWDqW+1aLCoeJNWZyvAIWJGT/FZcjZwqf+DgX lSlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lOV4zib5kyI/PG0VeFtV8hL9BCu/CJ/xYblI7RRtcj8=; b=S4IQU1IOp0DhJksQeiyg5c2oty27AlQ/c9vpk/FNKeD43fzkCLOe7CAqObhTLsl3JO sQRgeGqVkTR2eVDjROCvjuKFFwuhg5MjE6ZZ/Lsup+RAGekNOKUhFIKuZYlJK9IpJlMk dgfCwfhZ15LL6Je+QNp7fFTZ0WtQxhAQP7/pLpAbxCzt7Gtot9s25NJ9Eo37ZC3MgbVH EoKSsHvnawjrLk20QpHppgQGYcEz7I8IEfiJQzQX3JaTzFQDJ0LFru+TZoyObOSR/O21 oduGMMdlkgyHU12Pw/iNhkOhnGV+P/2dD+JsQ/0gRKuX6M1W3zn3XsrBdfgEyAMVmpUg XepA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKn/72Xk3q24zV3V1qIT89c82KwAVdDtmPAerRHksPQM5j1kOPkCEs6QD0rulzfBQ== X-Received: by 10.194.167.42 with SMTP id zl10mr1975771wjb.0.1468855166956; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.79] (124.25.176.95.rev.sfr.net. [95.176.25.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id e4sm1791872wjw.27.2016.07.18.08.19.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:19:26 -0700 (PDT) To: Julian Reschke , "Matt Miller (mamille2)" , "json@ietf.org" References: <876b2dda-340c-c0e6-6323-a736a1e8e504@gmx.de> <9aa67689-aeba-4b28-86c2-04bd03e8941b@gmail.com> From: Anders Rundgren Message-ID: <6b0d38b6-fd70-c3bf-7365-dc1e75f1df1e@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 17:19:21 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:34:40 -0000 Hi Julian, Pardon me, I was confusing this with the mentioned changes in EMCA's JSON specification (which hardly is considered as "normative" by the development community and therefore should be left out of the RFC). Anders On 2016-07-18 17:11, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2016-07-18 16:45, Anders Rundgren wrote: >> On 2016-07-18 16:11, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> I believe this document needs an Appendix (next to Appendix A) which >>> summarizes what's actually different from RFC 7159. >> >> This gives a whole new meaning to the word "normative"... >> >> Anders > > Looking at > , > the information is actually there (in Section 1.3). But it is still > weird that we have an appendix for one but not the other. > > To clarify, I'm looking specifically at the change in > > (yeah for anchors in the HTML diff!). > > Best regards, Julian > From nobody Tue Jul 19 02:06:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44B412DE32; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:06:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 wW1GI7DVHZyp; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5540412DDA3; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:05:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2567; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468919106; x=1470128706; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Zp8q63s4YcwKvfKMWpB5toKV6V8BWK0HUZyv3+62svk=; b=g/Z/1l5My6c3YIPskqXJjY7fhlY7wtTQCqf6LNn6MNLXUMqgQt8qqVd+ K7jevm5aJCiKXsm0gjTtXyNsyR70UZj7Nk3tQbEYxwYVJh7CcGbByqH4m Fm7yXeCLOFkbYQjrkqJTbDgxl9MRXdrfw2/hX40EghyeuIvdSW21pd8oo w=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BVAgCj7I1X/4sNJK1bgz9WfAasRYwag?= =?us-ascii?q?XoihXgCgTE4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RcAQEEAQEBbAsFCwIBCBguIQYLFBECBA4FDog?= =?us-ascii?q?IAw8IDrkBDYQeAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBDgkFiCKCVYJDhSmCLwWYc?= =?us-ascii?q?DICAYM2gW6HH4IegWuEWYhziCWHeAEeNoNzbocRfwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,388,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="130995447" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Jul 2016 09:05:05 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6J955rI001056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:05:05 GMT Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 04:05:04 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 04:05:04 -0500 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Thread-Topic: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 Thread-Index: AQHR4PQlBP0nI4w5ckS1LEOAPpaFO6AeidAAgAFBXIA= Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:05:04 +0000 Message-ID: <1620D9D0-1C06-46A7-AA46-267C41F261DA@cisco.com> References: <1e137fbf-6d67-d9b4-acbf-b53291c7bd40@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1e137fbf-6d67-d9b4-acbf-b53291c7bd40@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-pgp-agent: GPGMail x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.12.61] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_94224125-1F7E-4CFE-ADE2-88AC27202A1C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:06:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_94224125-1F7E-4CFE-ADE2-88AC27202A1C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On Jul 18, 2016, at 15:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider = wrote: >=20 > My understanding is that ECMA 404 is about to undergo a change, and = this > change is important to the changes in rfc7159bis. If this is the = case, then I > believe that rfc7159bis should not have gone to last call, as one of = the > document's normative references is in flux and there is no pointer in = the > document to even a draft of the new version of the normative document. >=20 > Ideally rfc7159bis should not go to last call until there is the = equivalent of > a last call version of the revised ECMA 404. >=20 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications >=20 The only change planned for ECMA-404 is to reference rfc7159bis by its = stable number. One of them needs to go first; in this case that is = rfc7159bis. -- - m&m Matt Miller Cisco Systems, Inc. >=20 >=20 > On 07/18/2016 05:58 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >> Hello all, >>=20 >> This starts the Working Group Last Call of = draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02, ending on July 31. >>=20 >> Please send all comments to this list (json@ietf.org) or the draft = author/editor (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org). Any and all = comments are welcome, including simple statements that this document is = ready to progress. >>=20 >>=20 >> Thank you, >>=20 >> - JSONbis Chair >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >>=20 --Apple-Mail=_94224125-1F7E-4CFE-ADE2-88AC27202A1C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXje0+AAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1I60IAIsRauqehNWMGC5MnYlQdZtL J2mhKoq4kysYiUC3k5h47jsRQ3N2WL+UBa9C647e3xqDopA1eiiUkOJaXPZbejre 8rnAI9E0Dd8mPL0+5fG7F2AEQNq8PDuzLWzy7qs38/JJAK/NBbRxzVs6crNeJf+j JXcdhtyfpgXiIfWHjakjTeSPzNbmeRrrUOjiaYVEpOhbeymF25XM7iRW1cQzPlu/ Ah78mXveT+CJfEDMKXCyuGjm8SJHy/oRgttrFMrJVQ2DFBDPDYC7AExM9DTH4gAA Rfcmh8No6zj189Kr2UmVso6v/h+1gK0uegS8MW2vW6WCzNst3+93PrEB5f8oZzU= =2Lq/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_94224125-1F7E-4CFE-ADE2-88AC27202A1C-- From nobody Tue Jul 19 10:58:12 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B3E1288B8; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 FTrdtr9yIPom; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (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 17F14127077; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 38so26105066iol.0; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YlOE/EZs1Y6iDfOzgszr+nfEiRy3PmOErCjgnVLxP/0=; b=oL5jyOH9l36/+2Z1ulvr3k1C1iHSgZREL7rwmHwb872rZRcx+uL5tUvyFtJWjBBB1R MsGpWEh2Nii3hykEm/2/K4iG1pHZDY3ElFfFIXeGGvVS/x15wdNFEJPjBze3dDYPp3dV U/tFc6e5Z+DeqtJ2ptk7nUS1N7v1MRgY0WOJda5L39IZFuu7ujF6mSPD5qO908k4zhOW uhmwgewOdM4kTDE8/mHGWR2XsvdMF1ztpjCWGHmWIPW3bQWBCHY8y6qwclwDxqew/wSc YwYnhoB66xspE6D2Xc42gdj6AqZ73ouBqdaNmXGpIQ86ijVfQGm/TGfjUH1lJpG+gLl1 ZTBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YlOE/EZs1Y6iDfOzgszr+nfEiRy3PmOErCjgnVLxP/0=; b=Itgi8UvUbswCbV4Qt7DgoxnEh2O9P7x0zc1JpQubotp/+zWOruYKWzV+wjvGqKxzpU t4stzJmc3a576YlY6y8STB4kukyqvaeLvp07PC1vZlG5J0GIx9PIcnw+Oo+hrqB5YUXF ninoWpPuuNifjZMXbsrV+nUCLikwzDeeHRaRuuTm/+NN1RpGqYJuI/1N/61GN8X8ndIC bKwVj8IhRtF5OFIkHc4Eb9UwjcBcG2y1jD0yFuVnMEM+bGx7GnlI1w3+j13Yhym/7ej8 m7EiKFjOqt9QS/RDdcSrOlnLQrWVoE/QWFpNJpEGpV/VZNkdI7QhXR0Giiz2vIjJy+dm 5nPw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK6+UuhCZP7ivye6OxLZ65kZo5Z/uUS8wQi/SwPgzs6IOFqmPyNUABWzUwpEyN2EQ== X-Received: by 10.107.16.228 with SMTP id 97mr46178310ioq.98.1468951087967; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([199.4.160.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d71sm10457161ioj.33.2016.07.19.10.58.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT) To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" References: <1e137fbf-6d67-d9b4-acbf-b53291c7bd40@gmail.com> <1620D9D0-1C06-46A7-AA46-267C41F261DA@cisco.com> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Message-ID: <68f9d71b-deb6-f87c-5169-204135c80d28@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:58:04 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1620D9D0-1C06-46A7-AA46-267C41F261DA@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 17:58:11 -0000 On 07/19/2016 02:05 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >> On Jul 18, 2016, at 15:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> >> My understanding is that ECMA 404 is about to undergo a change, and this >> change is important to the changes in rfc7159bis. If this is the case, then I >> believe that rfc7159bis should not have gone to last call, as one of the >> document's normative references is in flux and there is no pointer in the >> document to even a draft of the new version of the normative document. >> >> Ideally rfc7159bis should not go to last call until there is the equivalent of >> a last call version of the revised ECMA 404. >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> Nuance Communications >> > > The only change planned for ECMA-404 is to reference rfc7159bis by its stable number. One of them needs to go first; in this case that is rfc7159bis. > > > -- > - m&m The only change from what? The only change from the version of ECMA-404 referenced in draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02? That document, available at www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-404.pdf, doesn't mention rfc7159bis at all. If there is a draft version of a revised ECMA-404 that only needs a pointer updated, then that version needs to be made available so that reviewers of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 can determine whether this document is suitable for normative use in rfc7159bis. As far as can be determined from draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 there has been no work on ECMA-404 since October 2013. It thus appears that all the changes in rfc7159bis will have to be made and approved before any changes to ECMA-404 have even been drafted. peter From nobody Thu Jul 28 08:31:19 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A8612D76A; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ItbfdpnU-rxW; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (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 8EBCA12D805; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id u186so171075021ita.0; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:31:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QmNB1P3bWXCdvA7METr51dYA1TxLKJKfaKRiaHg7oQU=; b=UTzwnRDwaFivkvXVjpIeT/E05rer9f8n04/t2RGvGI6lZPT60s2kSBzcrBcDzkzt8L 7W1rFlYmOsl0p+lHPdr0PuDmG/XQs/az7EgL5k6CtuQzH/+4G1DjloDpaBjgB4u2oJkV SzkChbc+IiKTBWOf0PqTonTe/FIpWZyw0rJ8iZOo5pspNBriWKpSf54JUSTby/NG5aP3 U7GBFjYVIkR+tHdGol9l8UG+9zkAjxjM/wT5BuNZ9etQneJe/cVeA6PsB/UyvRQT0Xe3 ssrrqKnsFxqWivm9D56PrME5/cWwySFrVjmQ9M/b5RnKGr7pWo0MpXhMfsSRdGKawikX TkNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QmNB1P3bWXCdvA7METr51dYA1TxLKJKfaKRiaHg7oQU=; b=ZPmLkGf+6cR7IaCpWdTKX/MING7jGu/au9t7UC8yF9eauy3d3G2lfvtdU/ZFP/eF7N 0sDpuDInnfcfMuK9cgY3pRQ2yaziLEhERFWMQzNps3IZhD9C7Z+K4WXtKg95Fe5oG0bX 91GwbUYZi1/i5BPBoYooVH6SGTs4eilt6ekVb8EFJN7xw46/fiFkS3cldb4y2cD+XnEa tgvTdFy8NE5ZXnMoYSJZ9ylKal/wEUngHu7rZTZz+tiiJ3xozijzZ9tI8gLBIUip0BUY tNPtd064YEkhdC9EWGM61R4yovWlkudFw85zPQnXg9fLAQsIxkQluEnvYflmzIFPXnhw JamQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouu7SYd4Sd+V9E9d6TJa1ZTwRUnJna5v2u294DS4oQW9TJz0DtBQIMqQz+0UXvMRwg== X-Received: by 10.36.184.133 with SMTP id m127mr25926561ite.90.1469719874994; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([184.151.61.133]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s69sm5170545ios.20.2016.07.28.08.31.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT) To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" , "json@ietf.org" References: From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Message-ID: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:31:11 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:31:18 -0000 This document should not progress further at the current time. This document should not even have progressed to last call status. This document has an unusual normative reference to ECMA-404. This document also has wording to the effect that both IETF and ECMA will work to keep the documents consistent with each other. The version of ECMA-404 referenced, http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm, has no similar commitment from ECMA, nor indeed any reference, normative or otherwise, to any IETF document at all. Before this document can progress in its current form there needs to be a draft of the new version of ECMA-404 that lays out the commitment from ECMA. The draft needs to be available before the next last-call for this document so that the commitments stated by ECMA can be checked against the commitments stated by IETF. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 07/18/2016 05:58 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: > Hello all, > > This starts the Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02, ending on July 31. > > Please send all comments to this list (json@ietf.org) or the draft author/editor (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org). Any and all comments are welcome, including simple statements that this document is ready to progress. > > > Thank you, > > - JSONbis Chair > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > From nobody Thu Jul 28 09:05:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D5712D84B; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:05:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 uo9tvN1ajJ_T; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C3B12D83A; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:05:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2734; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469721954; x=1470931554; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=T0+7G8nrh0IFeIDeBcmxQeTvQBXRpPwNZYJPtmLjBnM=; b=IjPYzGdvlGQBWxzyOCaWvajFsbxpWezBCe7y55H13zewoGa5j80JxiiQ Gw5rEJNVotQ5/o9494PduQXBQHb5Wi5CXWYCpiemTrnMD9tHQWD0Bj5NW LgKGYbi1da0jSldYG0Fk9h/oFEnFqOaZfuOjFwOX59ZfPEFHNyDvP4Khi o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AvAgAZLJpX/4YNJK1XBoNFVnwGrE+MI?= =?us-ascii?q?IF9JIV5AoEzOBQBAQEBAQEBXSeEXAEBBAEBARsdNAsFCwIBCBgeECEGCxQRAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?OBYgXAw8IDrc5DYQUAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIYqgXiCVYJDgW8Og?= =?us-ascii?q?yyCLwWYfjQBjEmCM4FrhFqIeogohAaDdwEeNoN6bgGIAX8BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,434,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="302942224" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Jul 2016 16:05:53 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6SG5rkm022501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:05:53 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:05:52 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:05:52 -0400 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Thread-Topic: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 Thread-Index: AQHR6OUaM+GnspnceUCNhGvvMyCTeKAuRRaA Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:05:52 +0000 Message-ID: <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.19.203.25] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "json@ietf.org" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:05:56 -0000 I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we have t= he equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated publish of t= he two documents. But having our side ready to go, including finishing AUT= H48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in that process. I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not pushing the= button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC Production Cente= r is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a downref.=20 Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to ECMA-40= 4bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear to the RPC w= hat we intend, and would trigger processes they have in place to ensure the= reference is resolved before publishing. > On Jul 28, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >=20 > This document should not progress further at the current time. This docu= ment > should not even have progressed to last call status. >=20 > This document has an unusual normative reference to ECMA-404. This docum= ent > also has wording to the effect that both IETF and ECMA will work to keep = the > documents consistent with each other. The version of ECMA-404 referenced= , > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm, ha= s no > similar commitment from ECMA, nor indeed any reference, normative or > otherwise, to any IETF document at all. >=20 > Before this document can progress in its current form there needs to be a > draft of the new version of ECMA-404 that lays out the commitment from EC= MA. > The draft needs to be available before the next last-call for this docume= nt so > that the commitments stated by ECMA can be checked against the commitment= s > stated by IETF. >=20 > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications >=20 >=20 > On 07/18/2016 05:58 AM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: >> Hello all, >>=20 >> This starts the Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis= -02, ending on July 31. >>=20 >> Please send all comments to this list (json@ietf.org) or the draft autho= r/editor (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org). Any and all comment= s are welcome, including simple statements that this document is ready to p= rogress. >>=20 >>=20 >> Thank you, >>=20 >> - JSONbis Chair >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json --=20 Joe Hildebrand From nobody Thu Jul 28 09:13:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962DB12D8D5; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 56diE3RqpadT; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D41D812D7E4; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.123] ([5.10.171.186]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M6P5z-1b4XkE0Ykl-00yQzk; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:13:17 +0200 To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:13:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:tPpFHThATzpte/n+bwEKeS6ROUSPl5ICYQA12ype7A01k0Fj6k+ ps89OvBEc9eilBMtMFgEl+UIN2ASW6mXYY4pY9QbfAMrUZ/Q2OYPRy90pCNvFuKs8hLuDOs lnAw4tNCKPzmMVycO98mehrSge06Dkb7kL25K7ZfUZlDtxdYhsSSpf1zSrV0dKKIAP0cHHS l8tHBkTy5bcLSOxeIrKKQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:XO/S3HuFNRw=:bgHIi01rM6otunkNnjR+ii Ed22TAvL4V2dwD8znKv6Z6z65/SSlwHeOLdMxUzTcDtq90ZHveoSTj6qWsJaa7PBuCdb732zM bJcA6X0UovSlki2V2ZkHnWGUfkW3k0TXnvOsItfiX5lfHnKmnSAp0llBIzFnm90GwJQr8C71j rSCxNfv3YgJvLgeeZ0Pgv8hSVzO6cPKZtOIOAwQvClL2Y0u2ozLuAAU2Vk0rP+xaBX0n7mveM rYtOd9aEfynBjEc+B5WFrxpswxN6q2A9PCnKcmuPM3Uwfn+1Lg6eFnH1XRzHzT+uwvlJTVMCq hZCyl9k9I1gt45+qJ8Ki9FwpAGuqGxtTVhqwqDhbAN0uaAfJAtdYCp5kVkd2JxxlQV4+UUdQB 8DZJZY9+8aYLGMicfmaHYW94LR1lxkSWRV62ZmExggDZmVDbSER8Ho9gsanYVOSisyw/0K2Cg 0W+ewW4CM+FfGeL3RTpgaqfwKwbrBrPe9z1N7nzoO0YWZym+L8uNdjA5PQtfOfyijP0xbWDRo Xcfvl08y76kvCBlLjHHfhXBR2nsWKzJHrnhcw9TRnaifGW/kHj738+kqMx/y6RoEuqOima1kG soUfRw7/88xYYmLpK3N7rNgV37hcKaO3OTTAV/kNdNXjNcCPxuj6nJX2eRQJwKJ3PG4+vTCFC RgygMxrbYyANo+ZXLI/G9J94nGIGm9lkwu8M0/RYnFErWGPBLloIXQksRlkIyQAz0BGp4wkCZ m6l7AblzFBfjt28+ZrY83VTy5pTCXWF77x+eFZ8k/+xs0uujprGMLcta6mjbz69vroYNYFqzI HxluhWW Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:13:23 -0000 On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in that process. Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it also contains the change we expect. > I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a downref. > > Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. Best regards, Julian PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. From nobody Thu Jul 28 10:56:54 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9456F12DB12; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 9v9HtXledvaB; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (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 D99F112DB09; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id q83so107189419iod.1; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=37Jp02woPcLqsjgi2L89D8vAG89njK7RiQXrL5QBXCw=; b=0/SSh3BYo8l8TZOGVeeroTx4b7wFOsUJ0vL+wvbbOm81qerAvkfJ9jFPJc6NrM1pPN kkLJvS51fxCaiZ7AnyM03/aFItqc/uEisEGv6+rCGgvA0a138SV+KIS2R+MB/VptOfqs 4xkTWX1yW1G0hEHvF7ODWB7ovaMIM4BHhH6nesiS2XlYXcqReb+Z4w3NZeweF2p7mxBl Xd3VvedG16evNvv19hjoRbzoJ9f3heCWpq9NqxWQ7onCUnpySf2p4VugyKnQgQPmcLOa yUPojvtSeeWTtb4ogDNpthm6fcBu5tyR5oq4mSICTTWYTjs5ozkrJEwdo/4Pars8M5pL VJ3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=37Jp02woPcLqsjgi2L89D8vAG89njK7RiQXrL5QBXCw=; b=gSG+oI871aRD7xST3gD6TLzEuon2FpagBvkzwlvy5hqWXD7HIS57oeTxRMLHTZq6a9 TZhGwC70N2ZFR2NN/B+2UrZwrVa7li9NvupI2lz3DXvs4FuwhL1/n/MUksQpblvSUU67 9AX5yugZ4Fp5DBvfP/gUODmVFlNldaa062+NALYmwFAbMK2Y7Nm+3oiQ9okU7UB8cVDe qVke+rtzotkYgxTGJcL/R3oEh32F/9aiGHgdZfARqAyPllv3ZSuohVlpyOVtzyXOh6Tl X4Tw5eA5UT7jo+RvdVJNZn/lizdRq2McWZ1CkuzvJrx9U4zMwfBhRAW9jfPM4/doMNsX NLFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvAYhVIGlo+vhUATru1U52S4RP/AK8h/+It8Ep6H4jLFCvsngg32D2PbMFrdiPEDA== X-Received: by 10.107.146.195 with SMTP id u186mr38481261iod.112.1469728611262; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([184.151.61.133]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z128sm5481081iof.4.2016.07.28.10.56.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:49 -0700 (PDT) To: Julian Reschke , "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Message-ID: <55b1baf2-66d5-671b-53cf-18cce4ec99c3@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 10:56:46 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:56:53 -0000 On 07/28/2016 09:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we have >> the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated publish of >> the two documents. But having our side ready to go, including finishing >> AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in that process. > > Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism that > makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it also contains > the change we expect. Yes, how can this document be approved when there is no indication of what changes are going to be made to ECMA-404? >> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not pushing the >> button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC Production Center >> is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a downref. >> >> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear to the >> RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in place to ensure >> the reference is resolved before publishing. > > I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. A simple reference to something that doesn't exist isn't going to help much, if at all. > Best regards, Julian > > PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. peter From nobody Sat Jul 30 03:13:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E884412D610; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.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 l2xe7qPnDR_y; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JPN01-OS2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-os2jpn01on0116.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.92.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CEE712D1C0; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:13:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-it-aoyama-ac-jp; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=sTtJdBxe11ByBtqLytNjTpLob4BgslMDqxjGE/d+23U=; b=j5WzWEQ8K3KywoE9UIfN+hfcQBfZTrsQ+lmhW70IC1ixQU6EqAV1s7iB7RPmZ6U1oDCzkRIJFUMU5VH+iGmJvdXD+ZEJMyNVoHnupROLT+LjCflW13iCpUdoSwjTF1ywwWx7EXcb8C47KqEWpd3KNZ0RLpYvatyE3xzpRTrODxQ= Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from [192.168.1.2] (60.36.28.163) by OS2PR01MB0916.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.167.178.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.549.15; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:13:47 +0000 To: Julian Reschke , "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 19:13:44 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [60.36.28.163] X-ClientProxiedBy: TY1PR01CA0132.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.167.154.50) To OS2PR01MB0916.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.167.178.22) X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: ecf16e4b-57b7-46c1-2c4a-08d3b8623265 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; OS2PR01MB0916; 2:W4YLKhf6URzfgl6jCv0A5DG4+GTr2BZgBt/fTWYndPdYXGzl3e1/dUwNdAAq1bwW+HWdwMJqv/PWY6OIP/8rlgprcCzVBEanKu02jKAgD/FKPS4kzYsgPHXKsIgfDHFyYe+Sq3j6yljYXyM/YXfVNtbHfRS2QkmN9VaB4HXEkT/1KmISrEDXQHGRy7D3VFQZ; 3:1ztbu2VI6EsaY0Z3fd+puvjcUUP16Lx6WCcU+mgS0Rkes5tdmoYrD8GYy0rLYIH6OM/afe4+Jcpmlou4B7MNdD5P4mWbsJZ7/7ZXQ6HYWsFfc6xIBc2ooEp36FHkLAU9 X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:OS2PR01MB0916; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; OS2PR01MB0916; 25: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 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; OS2PR01MB0916; 31:4NjR2bIzWzlbGok1DPSHynR+Z8yiq7jLhNZg2jHjcgDG7SZfDUgPR5x7/4xLLXi7Fq1r2mPkrQGsNCt06IPiGggmm55+oWZMGd7KF8kPljIYdK1eYAs+IYsmNX4+1k6ihjVA+o0tUIVMuia7ISTsvP7I1/eTfO8xhportzGodbRv8iUEfvet/CQ1tB5wzXeTffNCm/2A/U0zaCZP8x//Dg==; 4:Dnx0tmgept5a2s/F+m5eFGsiUhK7/yM5HruxLhqazd7bE31/HNFsmg17xWd2vcjaIYe+DU82KpZb8bOa6SBE+ODHm9O4Je/XV73Lh5iWhC9klVZJQXeEo00CUHtWYCTuUaMvByLc9lg3mLDLLf/OoOOAn3M2X4u5ikpFA5UsxTOETEJYL6BML+bVkmKgGGBcsQGiZiol9gVxylf9Fz44C639sKyBa/1sASVuIn52SV2sRGqAfz+zJIDcjyfST7lD4hH9DNto+dzibH6AB0AqWfTWXzH9r0D5hCIAwr16c714R/0WWcsGMjWJALKKLNy7rIw5mo168HExFDdZh0EonJxiPu8AifJLjgYf3bzNLhmN7QaRMwZdHUT3OzGTMGSdvEPqjKkvYxez60TRbVIymp8C85S1O3TgyI6DgS0NXkc= X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040130)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041072)(6042046)(6043046); SRVR:OS2PR01MB0916; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:OS2PR01MB0916; X-Forefront-PRVS: 001968DD50 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4630300001)(6009001)(6049001)(7916002)(199003)(189002)(24454002)(377424004)(51444003)(83506001)(19580395003)(86362001)(33646002)(19580405001)(105586002)(66066001)(101416001)(50466002)(50986999)(230700001)(230783001)(2906002)(64126003)(31686004)(65956001)(42186005)(106356001)(76176999)(31696002)(65806001)(47776003)(189998001)(117156001)(93886004)(97736004)(68736007)(4001350100001)(5001770100001)(6116002)(3846002)(54356999)(586003)(81166006)(92566002)(4326007)(2950100001)(74482002)(77096005)(305945005)(8676002)(8666005)(7846002)(81156014)(23676002)(7736002)(15975445007)(65826006)(7059030); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:OS2PR01MB0916; H:[192.168.1.2]; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: it.aoyama.ac.jp does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: =?utf-8?B?MTtPUzJQUjAxTUIwOTE2OzIzOjJiQS9YRU5BV0lKN3B5OWhTVTlNRXk3Z2Q3?= =?utf-8?B?UlQ0emdDdlV6QU5kWFNEblpRMUphYWxCeGRxY3JOa205UmJyQURZd1pRb1FM?= =?utf-8?B?OVArNjhrbmFMVVVRRXBzdHM2SzFzSHNUL0wydXpPM1QxVmxQRGc4QWZDRXJz?= =?utf-8?B?RjcwTzR1aGlKdzBTenVMTmY1K05QK0tWdEVqWW9kdW5kcXpxYlZmdVJvaWFy?= =?utf-8?B?WU1kbk5Ic05MR3VJN2V1ZlVWbnZBZjNMb0lGY2J0U1IrOXp1dkt5eUhRY3FQ?= =?utf-8?B?SXQ3Zjg4ZXNxeUo3TGlBL3ZwOWx5Y2I0OXY1TTdiN0dTY21Ta1FWWmo0aXFZ?= =?utf-8?B?SkhkdlVQSWd4eU5oQ1lpOXp3UWVkdjRSMVFta2h6VHlFczNRWUVIaTFDV25v?= =?utf-8?B?Z0dGdVR6UmNnMHdaOVB0U294OVhhSU9MajRYcC92UERhdzE5cS85RHRSeHFM?= =?utf-8?B?RFEwRURrajRPNVN5RWwzK0F2eHpKSXErRWdxSXpzRUtOOUtzd0JnR1pPM2I3?= =?utf-8?B?SytzVGtTRDhGVFFKSzk3bE51UmxhL0NFUzR4Q3IvNUxVaFV0ays0K1NxSkc3?= =?utf-8?B?WFJsNC9UM3VObWNTRFZoaENhMGl4dUdLUlVqSjZ4bzZEcC9NSG10YU5reG1n?= =?utf-8?B?MEZSOEkzVWtySE1mbE1GZU9ML3FwQ3dkOXdoSEFyTVdiR1NxUU1RM2k4RzNm?= =?utf-8?B?NnFrTjNpVFRkRE5nSmdvZ21NZCt5T25Fay85M0NSMUd5WHZYajdEQWJ0TVhT?= =?utf-8?B?a29pMDA4cTJ2VnV1MnV0MmdWU3IrZVFHU1IxeGFpblhSVHUwK1dBbGRmMG54?= =?utf-8?B?UmNCVWtsQmNlWHBVY25zcGdOUlBXVU1YRlJwcGxCMEtqbFRDTlVKZkRvOENq?= =?utf-8?B?c05GTmNuMEVacXFvUkF3QmowTy9qTU9KQXJVTkg3UnUwTEE2N3VIb25YZ1cy?= =?utf-8?B?M1JWWGdxNUNJRDRmN2s1eGJtdWgvZVU5cXVZOW9Tb2FjbEh5TGNLYnM0U2Fx?= =?utf-8?B?M1JWaVpjUjUvT3NhMytHeUNLcmUwRkdvMEsyalpMbk1neXE0WXUxOXpWQTVy?= =?utf-8?B?SFBIbHJGRmJYdTlVSm9OL3BiS2Q0alRJNDRtZ2REdnBtaVF6ZUdMcFRtWGgx?= =?utf-8?B?aHFRb05Iclo5b0pFdC9RQVJ1cWdmTk4ydkJkeDBMVkZqOXdKQWpOY0FKRlNO?= =?utf-8?B?cmxqTTR4UjlDcXlGWWJEM2hYOVFPblNEbEtrVkpuVkppZ05yN0s4ZFBteTNM?= =?utf-8?B?MmdtNXMxSmdyQ3NvQyswbEwybUNyekM1NmpySnVzU1VuNG1tMnZhcWVEUFZa?= =?utf-8?B?alhTVWQ1WnVHa3BXM3gxM204WElocG43RDh6UU9XaWozNk1FN1pDOHpncGFJ?= =?utf-8?B?Nkl3aU90MmQ0NE1CcTJPT2ZpT29rV3pPazV2MVlFUTBiZDg5SnhPUGtyWE9L?= =?utf-8?B?RjN0TURkTFF4dVBoM0Vkc3J6c0lnKzhXMCtoOEt2UzExbjBtZ2xnSVpzbXEw?= =?utf-8?B?NzhZRDhHMU1qZ3Z4M3ZiRHNxV1NaK2Vadi9DTi9YMTROZzZXUUt1VG14dG10?= =?utf-8?B?SGsyLzBWTytsbHQ1amhaS3RnejhuK3lETjZYSUFKTUJreXFhcVZBUnRhKzVT?= =?utf-8?B?YzhYN0RUcE11MGpBUUZlY24xa0RyQ3ZyUCtvMm4vNkdGbTVlTVBIYm1KM2lh?= =?utf-8?B?UUJEaE5UV1VNRVZRZkRFSjUwbTljVWRVMXM4UVF5TTJDMVUzQ0QydWJIL0dW?= =?utf-8?B?RHFJOWlNd3dJRkVrcEJHbXJYbUhqRHRHVnpjc0xSdVhKV1p3SDgwNUg5dEtJ?= =?utf-8?B?b2JuN3ljNG4ycGF1VTU5aEdRT1dyL241dHYzUkVEVHRqbVV2MEM0WG1QTXlm?= =?utf-8?B?N1lNdmdWWHB4eEVtd1h1ekt5czREZTFpN2w5eDY2SWFwclRrZE5vWWtiMnVa?= =?utf-8?B?NkVzOURpVWx3PT0=?= X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; OS2PR01MB0916; 6:v9XR4tNc7gazgiXIRLSWb2yZcmvyyVSIKsZzjUgm+1DX6CpkGFOz2Po+X7I/1/XTFQyC9slUR5CLqCaDCVLNbPQ+JfP6PynmBhL7bJTZuqGvdBzBX70N1muSVBiHPWNSiZJx3pdzepF0UCcgiMp+ejJmoB7y6bPZkVF0zPs+drrzu8xB5Q/zCEUbUdC4n+PRth8nHZRY7WwwWy3r1n7Jhr/SkfLMVvLJeV+WyoO5QKs2EkGa1Db2QeEErZhcuDIysGkw68so+7grfGYlFZw7SHXnKqiQGZCW+qC7+9PG46gbjuwl205D+0AuPqFPOi4e; 5:VbLGf1BvZP0KHel5urn0ZA0fYXX79lPj0MWP03aH7KEMTSIc9PQRElGypcjJCmDhi+2NYYVQJpEXxShLJYqSJzL+gtrE2qUcnsm1PLszCySC+9SdGlBy1nxyloHEhEhxYfK2LAQPXpeOAPiYIqGfzQ==; 24:ztGLR0w7HY7Y3VnLHvK4ZwRBHCeC18IISkhJKxVi24KZqtb0Wr+mkpC/vVf8mpylqMKZQslmg6i5HLd1T/VmzN+RHClYKJPX4GnmImY1QG4=; 7:iq8tF06BsnpIrS5TJZhBMayLMiVhAZ/XtGfDRGMXw7MxXMfohZOFpa6ukaOhxgO7cQn7hFbQajPRzoyDQl6swuiMNuz8S981nS9RT16QbxgiusmOAP8hYxWQUtR7oqz470TRq0S2lQ/jN7Qlbe+JoOOHSyqzT0QWj66DZiq8bZfatZEX7BstrSbh0KIl3yxbm0XC3gTB/C1A/04QssDGW06Gu8z3oqNNaUbkzUF+HcWGFdkCRPbwxMq9UtvInUN9 SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2016 10:13:47.7936 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OS2PR01MB0916 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "json@ietf.org" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:13:56 -0000 I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a mood to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs. (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the reference to the ECMA side removed.) Regards, Martin. On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we >> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated >> publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, >> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in >> that process. > > Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism > that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it > also contains the change we expect. > >> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not >> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC >> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a >> downref. >> >> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear >> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in >> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. > > I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. > > Best regards, Julian > > PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > . > From nobody Sat Jul 30 04:37:31 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77E112D625; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 dbaIRZWkk5iu; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9219412D8EE; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.154.200] (unknown [74.125.61.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AC97509B5; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:37:22 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1F76187B-4470-48B2-BD65-3A7FE1883993@mnot.net> References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> To: =?utf-8?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst=22?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "Julian F. Reschke" , "json@ietf.org" , Joe Hildebrand , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:37:30 -0000 +1, well said. > On 30 Jul 2016, at 12:13 PM, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst = wrote: >=20 > I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a = mood to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs. >=20 > (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with = the reference to the ECMA side removed.) >=20 > Regards, Martin. >=20 > On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we >>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated >>> publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, >>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck = in >>> that process. >>=20 >> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism >> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it >> also contains the change we expect. >>=20 >>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not >>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the = RFC >>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a >>> downref. >>>=20 >>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* = clear >>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in >>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. >>=20 >> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. >>=20 >> Best regards, Julian >>=20 >> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> . >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Sat Jul 30 08:40:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7081112D74F for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 08:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no 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 3rYow1JZ0QU3 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 08:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailrelay11.public.one.com (mailrelay11.public.one.com [195.47.247.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C0E712D685 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 08:40:25 -0700 (PDT) X-HalOne-Cookie: 64e88dc34fb31d99ab3fb268fc150f9b377e0438 X-HalOne-ID: ed233bb0-566b-11e6-9f37-b82a72d06996 Received: from [10.151.207.178] (unknown [80.187.113.75]) by smtpfilter3.public.one.com (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:40:21 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Stefan Hagen X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13F69) In-Reply-To: <1F76187B-4470-48B2-BD65-3A7FE1883993@mnot.net> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 17:40:20 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4FD98985-C1EF-4693-8B9D-73B6825CF9DD@dilettant.eu> References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> <1F76187B-4470-48B2-BD65-3A7FE1883993@mnot.net> To: Mark Nottingham Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "Julian F. Reschke" , "json@ietf.org" , Joe Hildebrand , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "=?utf-8?Q? Martin_J._D=C3=BCrst ?=" , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:40:29 -0000 +1 dito -- Stefan. > Am 30.07.2016 um 13:37 schrieb Mark Nottingham : >=20 > +1, well said. >=20 >> On 30 Jul 2016, at 12:13 PM, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wrote: >>=20 >> I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a mo= od to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs. >>=20 >> (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the= reference to the ECMA side removed.) >>=20 >> Regards, Martin. >>=20 >>> On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >>>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we >>>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated >>>> publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, >>>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in >>>> that process. >>>=20 >>> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism >>> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it >>> also contains the change we expect. >>>=20 >>>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not >>>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC >>>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a >>>> downref. >>>>=20 >>>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >>>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear >>>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in >>>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. >>>=20 >>> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. >>>=20 >>> Best regards, Julian >>>=20 >>> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> json mailing list >>> json@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >>> . >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >=20 > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From nobody Sat Jul 30 23:40:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619E712D58A for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 VjT7woZa8flG for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 E436612D581 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id w38so89312118qtb.0 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Uf3s2aZ8JnxpC9eafzEwMu/cMXEXw0ViQ2acACUKo9g=; b=YmQZm/kWbxiztw1mpxSlKlBgFZr4AtFa+HpWDktqmLP+rAF1lCwnyWRZJ/199h9yjK ErTrH+FZdihkhlPsECugeAevdw2r+IwYhUKjr3k1wLujPJU49VrIWyDD8SlmXN76yi5v Nftt3yM66PoTNLYp0gl6RO/AlGXy4F4/g1jXUPnVK/CVWmxJHfpMpYyH7RnMGFM1MJtG zfDBB6X46/lYYOeV4oPUiS8rOJ7KJiigddqQlvuuWDD6fqb+MvAHBC8dXcxB5KavmTr3 XSeYBcGkm7HM4ORBCPxKEMkrFn5FAtcagCW57T+GmdlxvgZ8yJhO6Y32O/Gauq1wbYUo 4qWg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Uf3s2aZ8JnxpC9eafzEwMu/cMXEXw0ViQ2acACUKo9g=; b=KhiHjn8xEungQZDl2BAo5sRERT4DrzIWw6pyM017bHdxktCa+v566WFXSj2qUVricr aetkBRTKe21lQKdMQffnUJ73bBSbmB1sfz5f3B+i4z+6UkSO0jl/27xVWIHCkXkV5AAX /E+T8Tbcdblz8VEO9GZ+17tvuH+ewWqPCUxNZmzkhR7WVgA1uWWCToJvNMp+5u7u5kb3 zDkn2JWL04SH6Mw/9YTCJ+tYEPNqPTgTjWtf56CUxbpn7hl+g5TyAckOf55k/0J3Fgqa SvfjsOz0qoJU3vGs1Ss8LjyJkQGESGVlTFIttFna7CqATJhcU6iBL79fvel/TXmzu6U0 Nztw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuP2LsBrQ+PK7DhbotSNn90P70c/Hvnqk2TzcdOx0MLkG7nT92uWE5zw4PkCQK5RcAaU1myHVxENU8TWw== X-Received: by 10.200.42.219 with SMTP id c27mr78978129qta.88.1469947219995; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.98.212 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [209.52.88.19] In-Reply-To: References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> From: Tim Bray Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:40:00 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11406e72e31c510538e8c1b6 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , Julian Reschke , "json@ietf.org" , "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 06:40:23 -0000 --001a11406e72e31c510538e8c1b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, I guess the IETF & ECMA representatives will have to meet in the parking lot of a strip mall in Akron, Ohio, or maybe Lyon, France, and set up their laptops side by side on the back of a car, and count down: 3-2-1-COMMIT! Then they=E2=80=99ll shake hands and go their separate ways,= while the gunmen on the nearby rooftops stand down. On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wrote: > I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a > mood to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs. > > (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the > reference to the ECMA side removed.) > > Regards, Martin. > > On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >> >>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we >>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated >>> publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, >>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in >>> that process. >>> >> >> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism >> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it >> also contains the change we expect. >> >> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not >>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC >>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a >>> downref. >>> >>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear >>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in >>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. >>> >> >> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. >> >> Best regards, Julian >> >> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> . >> >> --=20 - Tim Bray (If you=E2=80=99d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray) --001a11406e72e31c510538e8c1b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So,= I guess the IETF & ECMA representatives will have to meet in the parki= ng lot of a strip mall in Akron, Ohio, or maybe Lyon, France, and set up th= eir laptops side by side on the back of a car, and count down: 3-2-1-COMMIT= !=C2=A0 Then they=E2=80=99ll shake hands and go their separate ways, while = the gunmen on the nearby rooftops stand down.

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Ma= rtin J. D=C3=BCrst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think this is an issue of trust, from both = sides. For those not in a mood to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG c= hairs and ADs.

(If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the r= eference to the ECMA side removed.)

Regards,=C2=A0 =C2=A0Martin.

On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we
have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated
publish of the two documents.=C2=A0 But having our side ready to go,
including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in
that process.

Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we nee= d a mechanism
that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it
also contains the change we expect.

I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not
pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC
Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a
downref.

Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to
ECMA-404bis (with details left out)?=C2=A0 That would make it *very* clear<= br> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in
place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing.

I think that helps, but it's not sufficient.

Best regards, Julian

PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback.




_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
.




--
- Tim Bray (If you=E2=80=99d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/tim= bray)
--001a11406e72e31c510538e8c1b6-- From nobody Sun Jul 31 03:50:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D5512D0A1; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 03:50:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=k/jmiUa2; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=jk1o/u9U 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 Mn_aDQHPDizu; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 03:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDED712B050; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 03:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EBA20161; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 06:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 31 Jul 2016 06:50:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=pI7ObSspAElwcG2iDVmI6JK5fIE=; b=k/jmiU a2wQEwURY/tlJvhbd1VJMcYq4QPshLb2HGqDhTTEufHLjqP+Y1Q80xj4+CkWJRkD MHOw1uJJMgarYrM5Cfiy8Y244mLUi+D+TPGc+q9Wj3iErsLGRBl0Eh8a/EXVDC2l JhXEmel9pwv4EUFYXbIWGoFP4dDzgnt5SdQGg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=pI7ObSspAElwcG2 iDVmI6JK5fIE=; b=jk1o/u9UlGJIx6gev8l+sKruZv4ztxPyN0UbUSivbPohzGg vBYMoKWmSIE8TrJjgkbL60z33amZz11qJSe23bH/B5//DrNmK6UelGX3b2e0ShAH Nz+Lfo0tHxNrzIN/KCV1auJW3Ry46b8QD/HqHyPxUlkHqMffoPPFi48diCL8= X-Sasl-enc: Gz/nmpWqjYwqx7dgGWsw4wqdP4E4F9RA2QaD8WSYw760 1469962201 Received: from [192.168.0.6] (cpc5-nmal20-2-0-cust24.19-2.cable.virginm.net [92.234.84.25]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 68AFDF29F4; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 06:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Alexey Melnikov X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13F69) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 12:01:06 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9FD90C0C-FAAA-4109-856E-DF1746B78A0D@fastmail.fm> References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> To: =?utf-8?Q?"Martin_J._D=C3=BCrst"?= Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , Julian Reschke , "json@ietf.org" , "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:50:05 -0000 Hi, > On 30 Jul 2016, at 11:13, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wr= ote: >=20 > I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a moo= d to trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs. Indeed. I can always hold publication of RFC until we see a draft version of= ECMA document. So I would encourage WG participants to concentrate on technical content of t= he document during the WGLC. >=20 > (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the r= eference to the ECMA side removed.) >=20 > Regards, Martin. >=20 >> On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we >>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated >>> publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, >>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in >>> that process. >>=20 >> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism >> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it >> also contains the change we expect. >>=20 >>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not >>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC >>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a >>> downref. >>>=20 >>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear >>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in >>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. >>=20 >> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. >>=20 >> Best regards, Julian >>=20 >> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> . >>=20 From nobody Sun Jul 31 18:22:52 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBC612B056; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4BqqeYwxgTnY; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (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 CE5E7128874; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f6so154194440ith.0; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cfYHDznHl1ZAADCTXFJ0WkbEmK/lGCNROyInhWSbuAo=; b=v9WHqFV/NhzrFM4fi0e0MvJBgtz7kqr8MSlmjL1P8vDlGDCXhPJ6a1YaAbNoAaNZG5 qBGSSD+SvMEb6YwgwHf3FqHu2Xlm2BUhUmnyGxMyRAOmTMz5XWIai1fGjdyf4WK2TGP+ 6Re+wPt5FBpN43YDDXnxHRyzjTPIzzWgkZExj6GD9Sv4d/QDGkpQFnkmEFDIWNU5S7KI qw0nCc5VJ8DRGjrnAhjOASamg62qLxY8r/zm7uQ9t8CIkYeyN1j1Tdg6qt7+KWTeTUUx OUJ+O6NosPO9dUHr9o4PHuxacCP7IpDcA/PGikVRdNZPUnSIVtzOIk2QHIV4Md/5GXpK We0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cfYHDznHl1ZAADCTXFJ0WkbEmK/lGCNROyInhWSbuAo=; b=PLPJmb5CMTSxnET2M8uv6kP2jYOSX6r3JWGXjzQU5LHhHi7LKNcyiTBFkEObUVoWEl gtksUlTnETr6KKUWkl29e+a4KF5palHA/umnoq8DhPzTvWzFwADd0ankDvHt+k9TWIQ2 l5KQ0q24k7SBxI+QO8KJVm5xkjV7fHunOK9ZB1LJHHSxx9ysfyO0bPnZ4Ij3EIvthKFy D3FOG9Y/pdezhstuLYJGtZoVtaxxUGc8VqyWNknNtHUChAYDTA/pqJsot6omdGbnftnQ nvCH2knbvk7QH6AD/CVdrcGiu73MV8pvYnfoqFDu0SPxzoy+GCJXVXaorVXPNEpEguHA N5nQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuwW0A5DPSkhEWBbLnxE7eCjkhilYLXEd5o2DbQcFLrpO0lSMEaMC7R1rXYhXa+Ag== X-Received: by 10.36.139.67 with SMTP id g64mr54223723ite.75.1470014568155; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idefix.nuance.com ([184.151.61.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f9sm12649767ioi.2.2016.07.31.18.22.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:47 -0700 (PDT) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?= , Julian Reschke , "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" Message-ID: <881fe29a-71fc-8012-6488-c823f0ebfbbf@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:22:39 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "json@ietf.org" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:22:51 -0000 I don't think that trust enters into the equation here. A standards document, be it from IETF, or from some other organization, should be complete before being considered for final review. This is not the case for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 because one of its normative references is not available for review in the form that it needs to be to support draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02. Trust in ECMA or WG chairs or ADs is no substitute for having an actual document to review. If there is trust involved it would be trusting that ECMA doesn't turn around and remove the reciprocal language in a future revision of ECMA-404. peter On 07/30/2016 03:13 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a mood to > trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs. > > (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the > reference to the ECMA side removed.) > > Regards, Martin. > > On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we >>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated >>> publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, >>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in >>> that process. >> >> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism >> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it >> also contains the change we expect. >> >>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not >>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC >>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a >>> downref. >>> >>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear >>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in >>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. >> >> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. >> >> Best regards, Julian >> >> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >> . >> From nobody Sun Jul 31 21:58:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7962112D1AE; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 bnHm0WgCUx9p; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 CDA8C12D1A4; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q128so50971069wma.1; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xjo1l1knZuvp3MhEuMGHTvSy8Pmq1C9YHgVoNYAWMMM=; b=FIYD6LRnKJ6a3Dfn1qP6Q19OnO4F8gdSVgwv1cwckAYgaIHBhjQErIpS7U5kXY/dHN 3Sl+bkOXzEatloLTMppiLNu+HzQrL3jZB20s5Z1BwbbVDP7GPmjM+LcSktP7kTiYMJkp jqhDn4AeW7Ny4N7/z4+06SMsSaUoVjqPiSGZb3wk0GVlci6PrlhIcwuRoKms3Mnyna2n QAv2Al0698RQK+9PB9laf1dA1+WUrY6PYXHhFQxXcV0T7euzXlpcSB9+QyTKgRLQGjKY +KFOBKstJahaAyQyUfotZWVwvobSJEDKEt8AVD9UXzb67kzYLHJzBUdh8og4varbyDxV GM/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xjo1l1knZuvp3MhEuMGHTvSy8Pmq1C9YHgVoNYAWMMM=; b=aV7sG5s1RM8aiybydVTr269MEDxSu6Z6qXEZkRwuqibmrwdPH8S15u7lR70eWUOdY5 sBWSkmWGBAzHD47jlDnRbqYmdmVhV1fSVBLydVhPH0FV8mv3LBh1PkRRWAgYYqeMkU/w AfDyIiPbRnRWd6eft2fkjmv1j2A/hvx7tCcs3VH69I+zh3jtCFmreumF3TBPGJmpEFWI aOGdd8ce+r/SxKsNc6nopJlvG/Nwt+bfpN4zTVpgZb0tAanrDikQlcBCXG5HMrP4uyAt ZowUnrUX2afyDmoUPjbBlF8aXU9eM0NkvJB7iKDJowOx809h5ShbWg9xeZoREzBRDSah T7bA== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouseaDgtNnqy9iZdKtTziUtDPbCwVATpipjz4o2toragwg6lJy+3JfMM7ElYXogJiQ== X-Received: by 10.195.18.170 with SMTP id gn10mr49447527wjd.46.1470027507163; Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.79] (124.25.176.95.rev.sfr.net. [95.176.25.124]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id qe2sm28520867wjc.28.2016.07.31.21.58.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:58:25 -0700 (PDT) To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" , =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?= , Julian Reschke , "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" References: <4c9504d3-c212-0b8c-0016-b31d653f15a6@gmail.com> <9E2C2681-B776-444F-84DC-9A28130DB2C1@cisco.com> <77e8ce0f-ceb3-0b69-54eb-635afbdf2a17@gmx.de> <881fe29a-71fc-8012-6488-c823f0ebfbbf@gmail.com> From: Anders Rundgren Message-ID: <1364632d-a951-4c86-cd96-35982fbb670c@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 06:58:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <881fe29a-71fc-8012-6488-c823f0ebfbbf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org" , "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 04:58:36 -0000 On 2016-08-01 03:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I don't think that trust enters into the equation here. The obvious solution is removing the ECMA reference. Not because "The IETF has a problem with ECMA", but because the idea of having two organizations being authoritative/normative for a standard is pointless unless they work together on a single document. ECMA should consider referencing the RFC instead of duplicating it. Anders > > A standards document, be it from IETF, or from some other organization, should > be complete before being considered for final review. This is not the case > for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02 because one of its normative references > is not available for review in the form that it needs to be to support > draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02. Trust in ECMA or WG chairs or ADs is no > substitute for having an actual document to review. > > If there is trust involved it would be trusting that ECMA doesn't turn around > and remove the reciprocal language in a future revision of ECMA-404. > > peter > > > On 07/30/2016 03:13 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> I think this is an issue of trust, from both sides. For those not in a mood to >> trust ECMA, I suggest they trust our WG chairs and ADs. >> >> (If everything goes really wrong, we can always issue a revision with the >> reference to the ECMA side removed.) >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> On 2016/07/29 01:13, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2016-07-28 18:05, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >>>> I agree that the document should not be published as an RFC until we >>>> have the equivalent last-call doc from ECMA, and we do a coordinated >>>> publish of the two documents. But having our side ready to go, >>>> including finishing AUTH48, will allow us to not be the bottleneck in >>>> that process. >>> >>> Not sure. "approved" means "approved". I believe we need a mechanism >>> that makes sure that the update of 404 not only happens, but that it >>> also contains the change we expect. >>> >>>> I believe we have adequate protections in place with Alexey not >>>> pushing the button until the right time, and making sure that the RFC >>>> Production Center is aware of the dependency to what amounts to a >>>> downref. >>>> >>>> Would it help if we replaced the ECMA-404 reference with a a ref to >>>> ECMA-404bis (with details left out)? That would make it *very* clear >>>> to the RPC what we intend, and would trigger processes they have in >>>> place to ensure the reference is resolved before publishing. >>> >>> I think that helps, but it's not sufficient. >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> >>> PS: ...and we need a minor revision anyway; see prior feedback. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> json mailing list >>> json@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >>> . >>> > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >