From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Fri Mar 1 02:01:49 2013 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 645EB21F8830 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:01:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.04 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S2OP5BvFaDDY for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006B421F8745 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id r21A1YBm003897 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:01:34 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 0620_c1bf_ffe73daa_8256_11e2_ab77_001d096c566a; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:01:33 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:36837) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:01:36 +0900 Message-ID: <51307C75.7060908@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:01:25 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nico Williams References: <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org> <4D80AE86-4DBA-4236-9E2A-A06F2F9C30F7@mnot.net> <00b001ce1509$c4c99fc0$4e5cdf40$@packetizer.com> <63519CDF-144F-4DA4-A9F3-A1AB824861D2@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Barry Leiba , Tim Bray , Paul Hoffman , json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] What does "break compatibility" mean? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:01:49 -0000 Putting the horse before the chart, I think we don't want to break compatibility, but where necessary, we want to improve interoperability. Senders that send two of the same keys in the same object, and receivers that take any other than the last one, both create interoperability problems. Fixing that is valuable progress. Using a standard language lawyer approach, I think we can observe that changing the SHOULD NOT to a MUST NOT should be okay because SHOULD NOT means that you can do it if you have a really good reason for it, but I haven't yet seen anybody come up with a good reason for it, so I'd claim that the cases with duplicate keys that exist out in the wild actually don't comply to the current spec. The result of the two approaches above is the same, something like the lanugage that Nico proposed. Regards, Martin. On 2013/03/01 5:46, Nico Williams wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Tim Bray wrote: >> It’s clear to me that, *for the purposes of the IETF*, someone needs to say >> “People sending JSON MUST NOT use duplicate keys.” The fact that certain >> libraries allow less-clueful developers to do this, and that parsing >> software is observed to behave unpredictably when they do, should only >> encourage us. > > The obvious compromise is to say senders MUST NOT send dup object keys > and receivers MUST take the last key value pair of any dup keys, > per-ECMAScript. The latter preserves compatibility. > > Nico > -- > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri Mar 1 05:49:31 2013 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 D1BA521E8099 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 05:49:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BqrfDcssJOBn for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 05:49:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (mail-ve0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E0221F90C0 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 05:49:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id cz10so2839566veb.7 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:49:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aIZMuGzQE3VppfxRJ3xojUggy6U4t/YRS05lGLSXwQg=; b=yvKdY9yoyLPN1WoGAFnd1Sn7jlyAEF6bxm1AInyPZQkWW00ZuvwWNfDopRbneCWlVz gPJWujJRBfC42pf4HOnAQ41nouiSY/YXMJxBraoaVYMHvgeIaaCLN/db2DP8TTUzNJhn uNWVDi2N3kM7xJ0xQav3M1RVRDtAfxLX3ve2t8mV8glMD4Ed1gOUx8KgjDTISW0mv0XC w6KEjm4RyMhH9QAzG358FTgNDGD04utTFBO971ab8krRQWIKqD+PftDwvVaJoQSS5DPP Kakfwe1ImQe4ww/PuSivLNQnDrLQkkOzVTVQWBdP228DWIsPNtAsXieED38gkmSymeHB 0pkA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.24.229 with SMTP id x5mr3529244vdf.84.1362145770791; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:49:30 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.59.3.41 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 05:49:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:49:30 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Zv9Hlg6v-FDRcvv6ZawCOEDfyNE Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: SM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:49:32 -0000 > I suggest against having an initial list. It's difficult to predict whether > people will have the energy to review once the charter has been approved. Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one item: make 4627 Standards Track? And then require recharter to add any other items, which would be listed as individual work items in any recharter proposal? Barry From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Mar 1 07:31:07 2013 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 6CE4021E8053 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:31:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 939VsyvtZWVh for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEDB21E8051 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:31:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21FV4WQ095965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:31:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 $1499$) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <51307C75.7060908@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:31:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <85109D3F-9B76-4DF4-A51B-6D0AB8255A85@vpnc.org> References: <0F513426-F26D-48F4-A7A8-88F3D3DA881B@vpnc.org> <4514F5D7-4A7E-476F-987D-C4C617F2BCBD@vpnc.org> <4D80AE86-4DBA-4236-9E2A-A06F2F9C30F7@mnot.net> <00b001ce1509$c4c99fc0$4e5cdf40$@packetizer.com> <63519CDF-144F-4DA4-A9F3-A1AB824861D2@vpnc.org> <51307C75.7060908@it.aoyama.ac.jp> To: "json@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Subject: Re: [Json] What does "break compatibility" mean? X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:31:07 -0000 On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:01 AM, Martin J. D=FCrst = wrote: > Putting the horse before the chart, I think we don't want to break = compatibility, but where necessary, we want to improve interoperability. = Senders that send two of the same keys in the same object, and receivers = that take any other than the last one, both create interoperability = problems. Fixing that is valuable progress. Yes. > Using a standard language lawyer approach, I think we can observe that = changing the SHOULD NOT to a MUST NOT should be okay because SHOULD NOT = means that you can do it if you have a really good reason for it, but I = haven't yet seen anybody come up with a good reason for it, so I'd claim = that the cases with duplicate keys that exist out in the wild actually = don't comply to the current spec. That's not true at all. A perfectly valid reason for a JSON producer to = put in two or more of the same name is a streaming producer that doesn't = know what has been added before. Changing SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT means = that a JSON producer MUST know everything else in the object before = emitting it. It would be reasonable for this to be the consensus, but we = can't say that it does not break compatibility with some producers. = (And, of course, the other option is to break compatibility with some = JSON processors.) --Paul Hoffman= From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Mar 1 07:33:35 2013 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 F0CE321E809E for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:33:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.683 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id APncrZuGGg6y for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:33:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EA521E8051 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:33:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21FXU03096064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:33:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 $1499$) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:33:31 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> To: Barry Leiba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:33:36 -0000 On Mar 1, 2013, at 5:49 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I suggest against having an initial list. It's difficult to predict = whether >> people will have the energy to review once the charter has been = approved. >=20 > Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one item: make > 4627 Standards Track? And then require recharter to add any other > items, which would be listed as individual work items in any recharter > proposal? That seems reasonable, given how excited people get about the "any other = work items" and how that excitement could delay or derail the main = reason you wanted the WG. The recharter effort can start after 4627bis = document is in IETF Last Call. It's not like we're in any new rush for = particular work. --Paul Hoffman= From barryleiba@gmail.com Fri Mar 1 07:58:04 2013 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 8EA5821F8EEC for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:58:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.037 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CvshNWBp16Et for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:58:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F7121F8EBB for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fs12so3036673lab.25 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:58:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=17TSwf2IxOSKID8GTvI6TJ98gBwvJVNy2v0iTr7bM4g=; b=VfW9VDVzxlDgOzlXYZLKvLqSY7nLbwyMraDNoXbPUyGWLseycs8ITVGQ9GHjpWfTOd 4XlxbV+0rbgcRUA7sG62MJo8TjyvheEGURYxOea40IiAbeGYcRm2EXekl/v9NA0RP4FT jjysCFST+QLGVOiMpgP19WAKCnYrPrz/cISXQfr6bNjTIIkGlqsaQWwMMo0kpvvlLA++ l2B8QCymIQ9hCLslb5uhSSOgsHJJ+EMF1JHXp4NKX32snr3GYY0LecEK6Oeq1LrfIYH0 txECnx7B0+am1ATX3kJWDYixBQ/dwm5o4/eLXXoySX5hMqUtHv8fFneDK2cgHfWkAYFK qavg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.83.133 with SMTP id q5mr957058lby.25.1362153482814; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:58:02 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.76.98 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 07:58:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:58:02 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 51GdKKX8jBv813zvIO5kKThX4Ok Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:58:04 -0000 >>> I suggest against having an initial list. It's difficult to predict whether >>> people will have the energy to review once the charter has been approved. >> >> Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one item: make >> 4627 Standards Track? And then require recharter to add any other >> items, which would be listed as individual work items in any recharter >> proposal? > > That seems reasonable, given how excited people get about the "any other > work items" and how that excitement could delay or derail the main reason > you wanted the WG. The recharter effort can start after 4627bis document > is in IETF Last Call. It's not like we're in any new rush for particular work. I've edited the charter proposal on the appsawg wiki: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON Barry From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Mar 1 08:02:54 2013 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 B44BF21F9154 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:02:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bRQT397DDEdq for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:02:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F2B21F913D for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.65] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 945964060C; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:10:50 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <5130D12C.2000004@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:02:52 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paul Hoffman , json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:02:54 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/1/13 8:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> I suggest against having an initial list. It's difficult to >>>> predict whether people will have the energy to review once >>>> the charter has been approved. >>> >>> Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one >>> item: make 4627 Standards Track? And then require recharter to >>> add any other items, which would be listed as individual work >>> items in any recharter proposal? >> >> That seems reasonable, given how excited people get about the >> "any other work items" and how that excitement could delay or >> derail the main reason you wanted the WG. The recharter effort >> can start after 4627bis document is in IETF Last Call. It's not >> like we're in any new rush for particular work. > > I've edited the charter proposal on the appsawg wiki: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON +1 modulo a few typos here and there. Mind if I fix them on the wiki page? Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRMNErAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pHA4P/3D1PAdDIyUP9QRHspG8HvUw uUSsnp8abxKgT9XbfVnKdZKxxjrqLet6Lq5fr/myYwslLQLT4dBxbevqYIxOMlvr RczUAuRpoUOcOJ4+vNZgf91cjZRO8bbY7GOusegPcHYTvgOPK7xJeQpoCoo/jFBN 5kH1SlOFugn1yOECIdwUZnfG97eW6dBd3/gGH2Qq/7aluW6/rwc24bTUsn/1ABdm WH8gf5djr2Ak7KNUHVpyAL1AQgIPK+ebZFwPVRxzA216/y9qam+K72VegOzz/Dm9 Zb8H3Gdu0xBsjgcNBWs9DF1xUzZ1sQxyKNpzjWfzBWx4FdyCI/VVc29Xeh/G/S4s bcBCjFf30rIX/uVaCJcLll4FeMioZT+8hKqBNeVjVoEyJZIRKWu7VuIijPIOlyYX G6IMYaYsyavNahJWOEGmax1KzKZbxvUqj93CeLwOXbMvCIKuuXiita6/B+01wPtp 4kfsAWlVDAthHCaN9TZEn/vLIWJVnXx1G7lfYkRqmFwv7MxYfeu+JXYA0Cx+KECI 9XONIv9wg9GuEJBJb44Ua5bIdCazS7y/Fd0OtXG4azVm+QvyUDyQWJo0TPaldO4e P1ii6W/VLP3PW2kh23uHH67K31Rig1k6scJ5qlzZ/0c55jE77OfVKp5xCSVM07K9 bt7+ZKgj0zWVTpQCClc7 =BHP4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From barryleiba@gmail.com Fri Mar 1 08:05:35 2013 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 72CDA11E809C for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.993 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODda30+zyR45 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com [209.85.217.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFB721F93D3 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q12so2375018lbc.11 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:05:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6JhaO0KcT9ZIBMC2ynIaVDHlBS6FbJEipSZi5mH8Yfg=; b=gSiJjsyPDZBm7PwO9hjujNmXnEUxGlpoXfWS/dj2p6hdq9gIAL6R6gJk2uAWjOiQaH nJCsvZH0kLqo+juEpMM3BRJI83OAB01LzClbdLU1bKA9wfAeb97fdkBXLyEvPJpcJjTv o4CNaymDJtQs0uuhgvbAM0mrlI1V5Eokr+lfjmLxk/w1JmtbpOwrqmUZOIAoAkqOUD05 aMBdEY2SQCprO+yq9Y6OQXhZY0gTE4OOq0bpo8jvT4e1IXwH5NlYtLPMFNsQu3r1LsB1 F3SC1XEetbA6SLrEZrzXkcEjydAk9HTjvg5qiZyjdLzRHlydVmAQNBb9tCL6UsbycT67 PjAQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.123.194 with SMTP id mc2mr9642697lab.7.1362153933441; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:05:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.76.98 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5130D12C.2000004@stpeter.im> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> <5130D12C.2000004@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:05:33 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vXLWnsrP5TgF-jr1mNcSJIooXrU Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Paul Hoffman , json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:05:35 -0000 > +1 modulo a few typos here and there. Mind if I fix them on the wiki page? Of course not: go for it. Barry From mamille2@cisco.com Fri Mar 1 08:05:48 2013 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 4ECED21F93D9 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vzl40gZ326+a for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8276E21F8B96 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:05:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4663; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362153947; x=1363363547; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2/JZ0dIGRB2oaIvSrOca6fuXnYfuDcJsBhm90opyDHQ=; b=alWVrmjmlkKzUcxi2YO53tfro9PpL4WO+Ty+38x1d7I3VJzJg3EH749m QeW/Zc5AJrVbuzKm2VH5GzFgoDSCC4jYVuKX92E3y8mUXCzF9z7ABBzS8 fmv5DzXU4CKbiAN6/gP0MvE+bF5m/1HmfYeR9AV0zLZ0I4tfk9GcXenCk w=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 2283 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMnQMFGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABEwjZ+FnOCIAEBBHkQAgEIIiQCMCUCBA4FCAaIBQzBG45jMQeCX2EDjyiBJocTj02DCIIn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,761,1355097600"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="182693380" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 16:05:47 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21G5k1K019346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:05:46 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.203]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:05:46 -0600 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Thread-Index: AQHOFh2sw1yCCbVghkiyxCFY7/PbTZiRP4sAgAAdEICAAAbZAIAAAiiA Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:05:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.88] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7526302-2919-4D69-9945-C49C2C788CDB"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Paul Hoffman , "" Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:05:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F7526302-2919-4D69-9945-C49C2C788CDB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 1, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> I suggest against having an initial list. It's difficult to = predict whether >>>> people will have the energy to review once the charter has been = approved. >>>=20 >>> Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one item: = make >>> 4627 Standards Track? And then require recharter to add any other >>> items, which would be listed as individual work items in any = recharter >>> proposal? >>=20 >> That seems reasonable, given how excited people get about the "any = other >> work items" and how that excitement could delay or derail the main = reason >> you wanted the WG. The recharter effort can start after 4627bis = document >> is in IETF Last Call. It's not like we're in any new rush for = particular work. >=20 > I've edited the charter proposal on the appsawg wiki: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON It looks good to me. Get the bare minimum done first, and only then = consider additional work. - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail=_F7526302-2919-4D69-9945-C49C2C788CDB Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFejCCBXYw ggNeoAMCAQICAwyLmDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQL ExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3Jp dHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0xMjExMjgxNzQ5MzFaFw0x NDExMjgxNzQ5MzFaMDwxFzAVBgNVBAMTDk1hdHRoZXcgTWlsbGVyMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJt YW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC7Sh5cQYtd /kfoG3KjXd8i2esxt+BtHCmuiSku2VECC6msLKzA08cGJ31GfyX7+996TV3D5omh51j5fznfFikk cVGsuKe+omo70Aidw48ISGygQk8ZJrU8JVVfTjKVJRX39wgj8w8CI/BCz4kXLirIBWKTv1ARuqsO 7I1aqT7pWHAwlAKIbYYEwfz46OjyzmqknglOecy/1PR09nXwAAIepSo0Jk9edqsU8Pdqsbx8cPUV jlFtVkk+58ORjefl+4BoGrzW24rGG2B04sNPrycNqZEaJLmdk5J9ie/FMV10H8wFW8syomuacPxv NhoUgNnkYsJiO7zJEKUUmbmW1GPFAgMBAAGjggFCMIIBPjAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMFYGCWCGSAGG +EIBDQRJFkdUbyBnZXQgeW91ciBvd24gY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgZm9yIEZSRUUgaGVhZCBvdmVyIHRv IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuQ0FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCA6gwQAYDVR0lBDkwNwYIKwYBBQUH AwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBgorBgEEAYI3CgMEBgorBgEEAYI3CgMDBglghkgBhvhCBAEwMgYIKwYBBQUH AQEEJjAkMCIGCCsGAQUFBzABhhZodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5jYWNlcnQub3JnMDEGA1UdHwQqMCgwJqAk oCKGIGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZy9yZXZva2UuY3JsMB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEm1hbWlsbGUy QGNpc2NvLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAgEAKZeEUJTYYt15cxR3xYospy8OqOLn+03auURM X3eFTrbBy+vJEnEtDS5ffCKbzAho6XqGrgRg/7Frg2wtdfIJvcYnPsWjlF+TIWe69i9r7EfPZI6A DCWHeu5cK3t9h7WsF3iC+lBARWEE49QJcu6ASY4SpVnElADpUZkBLsKnp2vWEVvXdeFg0CCo9UgH gPnE5mUsUaERW0WGIbyR+gkUkfMUsnOj2yvdZzC55UqAfFGqb4ibVlpWMJihaTYaSuN7SOImcJ5V Ya1w4yPRY2GStiHtmwPKtxlMVwMIsj1DQ/knVPpyJ0N67y8TK3R077HMInjk8wF6yCJ7W29mGtsA Y74bHEwn4rMdPDAHK1aHvIhf5KZFBuDYm5Ii6yweR8mpUv66r11h1G9vZKpJyKqR0yikdJfQ+kGN C1mAFN6ZKfQexnzzAPUClzcrJQsLWGl1tss+LHWFEhSq0240bvUqPVNl52WGwMrgzP/W32HZz62W 1CUaWiy3Xr8cHEY3fTSqxPLJiEuRsUmg1+6cjtz9+Ya+IDZwPRtcqzmJFQq+Q1xHLKfS8uf/jxHP xVOzbPpF/O0E0A8Z9ShmfdhgrHNJExXMVerISlzQY6Aq+XzGyOXVwUVyfTnTj7orMacBAVUJNl4s MHEJ02oUeALFMoa2TvwtGEw6Ou7/UlNXt/E1iUkxggMzMIIDLwIBATCBgDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdS b290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQg U2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDDIuY MAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggGHMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8X DTEzMDMwMTE2MDU0NlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFC6g0Td9aiE+dm4NrzCSlTBiTujAMIGRBgkr BgEEAYI3EAQxgYMwgYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBDQTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5j YWNlcnQub3JnMSIwIAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25pbmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcN AQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwyLmDCBkwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgYOggYAweTEQMA4G A1UEChMHUm9vdCBDQTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIwIAYDVQQDExlD QSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25pbmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0QGNhY2VydC5v cmcCAwyLmDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQChFFXOHq4YnS6s7yCbIUAirx0OKuQFI2gG9onngMF8 pufMeBGBy1XmKLwUi85h0bEOZz7EH2Yk3tdWYGsPB+AYxEKNSv4MIwfV8usaDgBhAAxEID2a9pC+ 8O0yKgV6ROP8G8SYYWPVGNzuXkJcMAeleDKBLSD4UzE7mboWJzhMlVbvLeVVuTC+V0FBijyczsK5 bKwiQ1HZ1nuyiJOgvTHm+F2Wpd0m+NwVdnCjIa/mHc8N3aipHuyT4bTAZNwVfN2+fZOd7fPXKFm6 MnqpSI3yeZpqjd2zs4Oq32+KLm0kjPeh58ycNeirXDAYkIsLDnQTzQuuXBQZzdc+IsRuNk2tAAAA AAAA --Apple-Mail=_F7526302-2919-4D69-9945-C49C2C788CDB-- From sm@resistor.net Fri Mar 1 08:36:51 2013 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 B4CEF21F90D5 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:36:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4HiRL0kYQJQ for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF5411E80C5 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21GacAP009444; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:36:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1362155802; bh=SmOxRZ6QHUl5rsXsaJwKe4mA1GGk6ZOgl0Ay+f0r0VE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=U28NHkdyvsGkInBr8h6MI4zfVGNpnqerYrPjKPqCES1JH5VTfy3UHAB7jD8NUV3Hh tDukWIwQ1dEM87Wwa39SUNDqkzy6A/YKinpo5wZY6cqJ0dbLcj7Cicq5ifQlyeRHKD Io/+RjDB3Op13pehFNcbX9MONX0HGRfmWPWRXnGg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1362155802; i=@resistor.net; bh=SmOxRZ6QHUl5rsXsaJwKe4mA1GGk6ZOgl0Ay+f0r0VE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Accjo7nvj0JDDFKf5yp8b18OugePloxc2azvrJh0nU8kXLLgHZ+1mo+mTXg2XwTyU 2opJIdrOzwiK6swLT4dDXgr+rvJQ6FYxkCWTykI+Jw5AaZ0i2rWd3F9djdT4bHGlo+ FK2BbxTPpSkCxDdBEdiW8/H/ORlG5//iHiVabDZI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130301065826.0c11c700@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:01:12 -0800 To: Barry Leiba From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:36:51 -0000 Hi Barry, At 05:49 01-03-2013, Barry Leiba wrote: >Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one item: make >4627 Standards Track? And then require recharter to add any other >items, which would be listed as individual work items in any recharter >proposal? Yes to both questions. Regards, -sm From nico@cryptonector.com Fri Mar 1 08:46:32 2013 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 DFC9B21E80CD for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:46:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SlRmXg2B63IJ for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:46:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcagg.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2656921E80CB for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:46:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA0E264058 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:46:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; s=cryptonector.com; bh=EUSScVurY4Vjs0 tV5dwUpKWv7SU=; b=i0Z058zFdPjWckV4TUGe9muo7OveyA0ZbYiG/MTDCpHqcg nD/vlD8N2eQd4w1XqA5kRgcdEG6ylyy8zot/f8and/T0/Ffuz+ScTZrd6ZZAzqfX 0Z9idQELjG0tvwTxt/LsjNSVH8Fy1hBZ9+iwbxtW7mOuvNx4sH028HptGfaMw= Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a88.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F3CA264059 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id t57so2740896wey.27 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:46:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.76.84 with SMTP id i20mr5164497wiw.9.1362156389138; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:46:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.148.193 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 08:46:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:46:28 -0600 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: [Json] Compliance vs. interop (Re: What does "break compatibility" mean?) X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:46:32 -0000 On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:01 AM, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst = wrote: >> Using a standard language lawyer approach, I think we can observe that c= hanging the SHOULD NOT to a MUST NOT should be okay because SHOULD NOT mean= s that you can do it if you have a really good reason for it, but I haven't= yet seen anybody come up with a good reason for it, so I'd claim that the = cases with duplicate keys that exist out in the wild actually don't comply = to the current spec. > > That's not true at all. A perfectly valid reason for a JSON producer to p= ut in two or more of the same name is a streaming producer that doesn't kno= w what has been added before. Changing SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT means that a = JSON producer MUST know everything else in the object before emitting it. I= t would be reasonable for this to be the consensus, but we can't say that i= t does not break compatibility with some producers. (And, of course, the ot= her option is to break compatibility with some JSON processors.) The new requirement for receivers takes care of not breaking senders that continue to send duplicate keys. There's no breakage, except where previously undefined receiver behavior changes due to the new requirement on receivers, but that was always a possibility before, so there's no new breakage. You seem to define "break" as including "rendering no longer being compliant, even if still being interoperable". Perhaps you could offer your proposal. Or we can speculate about it. You seem to want to keep the SHOULD NOT send dups but (?) add the new receiver requirement. Your rationale for this seems to be that rendering senders of dups non-compliant is somehow bad, to which I've two responses: a) The old senders will remain compliant with the RFC in force when they were deployed. Ergo there there's no valid "rendered uncompliant" concern. b) Even if (a) is unconvincing, again, we have NO IETF COMPLIANCE POLICE. When these sorts of changes come up the first question should be "what about interop?"; the "what about causing implementations to remain interoperable but no longer compliant? who will soothe their feelings?" should have much lower importance. Perhaps we need to deal with that meta issue first: do we (the WG, the area, and/or the IETF) have a goal of not rendering existing implementations of Internet standards non-compliant with updates to said standards? Is this even a valid question (see point (a) above)?? (It's clear we still care first and foremost about interoperability/compatibility when it comes to updating existing Standards-Track RFCs. As we should. I hope that doesn't come into question.) Nico -- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Mar 1 09:31:47 2013 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 6D09921E808A for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:31:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.682 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPftRH4ohtJg for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:31:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0203021F92B1 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:31:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21HVg2I001467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:31:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 $1499$) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:31:42 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> To: Barry Leiba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:31:47 -0000 I made two more small changes to the proposed charter; comments are = welcome. - Changed the community review sentence to say "There are also a number = of other JSON-related proposals for Standards Track that would benefit = from review from both the IETF and the larger JSON-using communities = created by a working group focused on JSON" to indicate that we would = benefit from JSON-using developers who are currently not active in the = IETF. - Changed the "breaking compatibility" sentence to say "Any changes that = break compatibility with existing implementations will need to have very = strong justification and broad support, and will have to be documented = in the new RFC" to make it clear that the resulting RFC should make any = changes clear. --Paul Hoffman= From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Mar 1 09:33:22 2013 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 8FB9821E808A for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:33:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R09S7yiP3ENA for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:33:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E87B21E8037 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:33:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.129.24.65] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A4BB4060C for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:41:18 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <5130E65E.4070009@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:33:18 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: json@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:33:22 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/1/13 10:31 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > I made two more small changes to the proposed charter; comments are > welcome. > > - Changed the community review sentence to say "There are also a > number of other JSON-related proposals for Standards Track that > would benefit from review from both the IETF and the larger > JSON-using communities created by a working group focused on JSON" > to indicate that we would benefit from JSON-using developers who > are currently not active in the IETF. > > - Changed the "breaking compatibility" sentence to say "Any changes > that break compatibility with existing implementations will need to > have very strong justification and broad support, and will have to > be documented in the new RFC" to make it clear that the resulting > RFC should make any changes clear. Those changes seem fine to me. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRMOZeAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pcO0P/3SJ/wxJEMTnUcqp3+Ix4xLR TgCiptFQfqkkwyOSAsdA73GjmzslEakftg9Z7srFFpPaLszMwK1I79ubp1cCaZ5P ycV8eAK5fOJQcIiDvDCiRH1QLyDAmYRMNyg49luKx8O9LZWJJxxLpLPZpSeSHmol zC4tOXZbur5hsxVKSe+z0r93AO3/jCuMjNr3Cdb4kxXNgUR9QPMShrpipM0O36ei a9+rxfFa8zOTNSHqXAFZSQu2sQ+3qLVS51wtCFblJrb1O+kvIk0xXcGHY2FmL/+v 4z0/uBa4Kf6bBo6Umm8UsZiJx8qmG2DzQvoYZqA4HstTr69VzmssmXBfekZ57ODv fb8L0B/S8xEubyecG9mb1XUwN3F7Samiuhxvjh7zs7Vg3yaJ6PpGDDQLARD0eE5+ nIyYfmae6OQX7Y7nDU2hHKWucphHL3rAmLT5oYy3inxnRhWCnGPWAcOB+Xv9jIuW RnOpGrW+UlG1Gymyj7HllzuiHZ6HBRyEhWy4gIMYoLgGHBYp75+BoUmffU9+tClv v5SXi1grtHdbJA7JmAhX8Ar2xtwVWjgolbH8O1LZTvGctd1yix6mzPmeUJOYhP0U ubn2C/ECk6sXUSAqaFFks95/cAH7jOvaCNsqsjG0zVUK3ZhkZiEiW6WZKLuh7aJf M9WqriwZdJEJluru90nO =pnpC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mamille2@cisco.com Fri Mar 1 09:36:42 2013 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 C6EBE21F9359 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:36:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJtK8jfjVY8X for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:36:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DA421F9355 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:36:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4485; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362159402; x=1363369002; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=kdcEPnOcBwkPVW4N+uPabp8+qpLAWJky+K/2T0jzT5c=; b=WkH9z3eWV9cRIdYV+KL3TI9HrgeM7FSTjo9SfmCBJnKfLIeQLpe6iCr1 SyoC/g2wcyu5T8Qd+HxYTcuKnqVY5vN8YpAeUGtS6eg3TK1AdHd9o3/qa NnhZFneqUILha2nzJOeQKKMF72x2N51JriRtnR2ebYl/6ij77qx/fHPIb 8=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 2283 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkAFAGPmMFGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEhgi8M34Wc4IfAQEBAwF5BQsCAQgiJAIwJQIEDgUIBgaHeQbBJo5sMQeCX2EDjyiBJpZggwiCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,762,1355097600"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="179738569" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 17:36:41 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21Hafg6016807 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com ([169.254.6.203]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:36:41 -0600 From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" To: Paul Hoffman Thread-Topic: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Thread-Index: AQHOFh2sw1yCCbVghkiyxCFY7/PbTZiRP4sAgAA+FQCAAAFjAA== Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:36:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.88] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DA3EF8E9-C875-4983-B20A-34D208C534D3"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Barry Leiba , "" Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:36:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DA3EF8E9-C875-4983-B20A-34D208C534D3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 1, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > I made two more small changes to the proposed charter; comments are = welcome. >=20 > - Changed the community review sentence to say "There are also a = number of other JSON-related proposals for Standards Track that would = benefit from review from both the IETF and the larger JSON-using = communities created by a working group focused on JSON" to indicate that = we would benefit from JSON-using developers who are currently not active = in the IETF. >=20 > - Changed the "breaking compatibility" sentence to say "Any changes = that break compatibility with existing implementations will need to have = very strong justification and broad support, and will have to be = documented in the new RFC" to make it clear that the resulting RFC = should make any changes clear. +1 - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. --Apple-Mail=_DA3EF8E9-C875-4983-B20A-34D208C534D3 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFejCCBXYw ggNeoAMCAQICAwyLmDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdSb290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQL ExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQgU2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3Jp dHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAeFw0xMjExMjgxNzQ5MzFaFw0x NDExMjgxNzQ5MzFaMDwxFzAVBgNVBAMTDk1hdHRoZXcgTWlsbGVyMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJt YW1pbGxlMkBjaXNjby5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC7Sh5cQYtd /kfoG3KjXd8i2esxt+BtHCmuiSku2VECC6msLKzA08cGJ31GfyX7+996TV3D5omh51j5fznfFikk cVGsuKe+omo70Aidw48ISGygQk8ZJrU8JVVfTjKVJRX39wgj8w8CI/BCz4kXLirIBWKTv1ARuqsO 7I1aqT7pWHAwlAKIbYYEwfz46OjyzmqknglOecy/1PR09nXwAAIepSo0Jk9edqsU8Pdqsbx8cPUV jlFtVkk+58ORjefl+4BoGrzW24rGG2B04sNPrycNqZEaJLmdk5J9ie/FMV10H8wFW8syomuacPxv NhoUgNnkYsJiO7zJEKUUmbmW1GPFAgMBAAGjggFCMIIBPjAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMFYGCWCGSAGG +EIBDQRJFkdUbyBnZXQgeW91ciBvd24gY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgZm9yIEZSRUUgaGVhZCBvdmVyIHRv IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuQ0FjZXJ0Lm9yZzAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCA6gwQAYDVR0lBDkwNwYIKwYBBQUH AwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBgorBgEEAYI3CgMEBgorBgEEAYI3CgMDBglghkgBhvhCBAEwMgYIKwYBBQUH AQEEJjAkMCIGCCsGAQUFBzABhhZodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5jYWNlcnQub3JnMDEGA1UdHwQqMCgwJqAk oCKGIGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZy9yZXZva2UuY3JsMB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEm1hbWlsbGUy QGNpc2NvLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAgEAKZeEUJTYYt15cxR3xYospy8OqOLn+03auURM X3eFTrbBy+vJEnEtDS5ffCKbzAho6XqGrgRg/7Frg2wtdfIJvcYnPsWjlF+TIWe69i9r7EfPZI6A DCWHeu5cK3t9h7WsF3iC+lBARWEE49QJcu6ASY4SpVnElADpUZkBLsKnp2vWEVvXdeFg0CCo9UgH gPnE5mUsUaERW0WGIbyR+gkUkfMUsnOj2yvdZzC55UqAfFGqb4ibVlpWMJihaTYaSuN7SOImcJ5V Ya1w4yPRY2GStiHtmwPKtxlMVwMIsj1DQ/knVPpyJ0N67y8TK3R077HMInjk8wF6yCJ7W29mGtsA Y74bHEwn4rMdPDAHK1aHvIhf5KZFBuDYm5Ii6yweR8mpUv66r11h1G9vZKpJyKqR0yikdJfQ+kGN C1mAFN6ZKfQexnzzAPUClzcrJQsLWGl1tss+LHWFEhSq0240bvUqPVNl52WGwMrgzP/W32HZz62W 1CUaWiy3Xr8cHEY3fTSqxPLJiEuRsUmg1+6cjtz9+Ya+IDZwPRtcqzmJFQq+Q1xHLKfS8uf/jxHP xVOzbPpF/O0E0A8Z9ShmfdhgrHNJExXMVerISlzQY6Aq+XzGyOXVwUVyfTnTj7orMacBAVUJNl4s MHEJ02oUeALFMoa2TvwtGEw6Ou7/UlNXt/E1iUkxggMzMIIDLwIBATCBgDB5MRAwDgYDVQQKEwdS b290IENBMR4wHAYDVQQLExVodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNhY2VydC5vcmcxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUNBIENlcnQg U2lnbmluZyBBdXRob3JpdHkxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWEnN1cHBvcnRAY2FjZXJ0Lm9yZwIDDIuY MAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggGHMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8X DTEzMDMwMTE3MzY0MVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFGBLoMVUmReUKq2h2yiNVL9JpUvRMIGRBgkr BgEEAYI3EAQxgYMwgYAweTEQMA4GA1UEChMHUm9vdCBDQTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5j YWNlcnQub3JnMSIwIAYDVQQDExlDQSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25pbmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcN AQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0QGNhY2VydC5vcmcCAwyLmDCBkwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgYOggYAweTEQMA4G A1UEChMHUm9vdCBDQTEeMBwGA1UECxMVaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYWNlcnQub3JnMSIwIAYDVQQDExlD QSBDZXJ0IFNpZ25pbmcgQXV0aG9yaXR5MSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdXBwb3J0QGNhY2VydC5v cmcCAwyLmDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQCaiWLp0UsVWCMQ8B5H3OVHhvCInOBeRWC32Gh62Iaa M03Au2i+AQnnXiEGmyXVAI/mX0b1ivl3pU73dV21fgUjbS5oUnob1NTEKixwlycoqNTzTmk6UGuH tY4/08F3yuCqx4TlUEM8QLAs7a7YTiUGePSBeI4Y01H921EfAfk7SGAMVq3zMF6Ilw+e5gAonWyX BkAnjKvdegpO8p/NVl7IxQCfQVorWQC2BcGkaOuJAeGRwVdwB0RCuCkIQSLWb5WUB7XiEgy0Y2Nf 26TvMh0Z/RUK+SXSELnX+E5610tpwOqSgZORiBFWBFB3TMRgbCFSPrnRxsG+nmvONsKvFQtHAAAA AAAA --Apple-Mail=_DA3EF8E9-C875-4983-B20A-34D208C534D3-- From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Fri Mar 1 09:39:09 2013 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 8C63C21E8037 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:39:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.68 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzv4kU8KCrZe for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13BF21F9365 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:39:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21Hd7IM001753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:39:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 $1499$) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:39:07 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Nico Williams X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Compliance vs. interop (Re: What does "break compatibility" mean?) X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:39:09 -0000 On Mar 1, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Paul Hoffman = wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2013, at 2:01 AM, Martin J. D=FCrst = wrote: >>> Using a standard language lawyer approach, I think we can observe = that changing the SHOULD NOT to a MUST NOT should be okay because SHOULD = NOT means that you can do it if you have a really good reason for it, = but I haven't yet seen anybody come up with a good reason for it, so I'd = claim that the cases with duplicate keys that exist out in the wild = actually don't comply to the current spec. >>=20 >> That's not true at all. A perfectly valid reason for a JSON producer = to put in two or more of the same name is a streaming producer that = doesn't know what has been added before. Changing SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT = means that a JSON producer MUST know everything else in the object = before emitting it. It would be reasonable for this to be the consensus, = but we can't say that it does not break compatibility with some = producers. (And, of course, the other option is to break compatibility = with some JSON processors.) >=20 > The new requirement for receivers takes care of not breaking senders > that continue to send duplicate keys. There's no breakage, except > where previously undefined receiver behavior changes due to the new > requirement on receivers, but that was always a possibility before, so > there's no new breakage. I was with you until that last phrase. We were talking about breaking = *compatibility* before you changed the thread title. In the old thread, = adding a specification for an undefined receiver breaks compatibility = for anyone who wasn't doing what the new specification says. In your new = thread, I agree that we would not be breaking compliance, but that's = because we are defining compliance. > You seem to define "break" as including "rendering no longer being > compliant, even if still being interoperable". I didn't define "break"; I defined "break compatibility". So, yes. > Perhaps you could offer your proposal. =20 I have already said that I would be OK with either of the proposals for = changes to the spec; what is not OK is to pretend that either would not = break compatibility. That was the topic of the thread before you changed = it. > ...... >=20 > a) The old senders will remain compliant with the RFC in force when > they were deployed. Ergo there there's no valid "rendered > uncompliant" concern. >=20 > b) Even if (a) is unconvincing, again, we have NO IETF COMPLIANCE > POLICE. When these sorts of changes come up the first question should > be "what about interop?"; the "what about causing implementations to > remain interoperable but no longer compliant? who will soothe their > feelings?" should have much lower importance. >=20 > Perhaps we need to deal with that meta issue first: do we (the WG, the > area, and/or the IETF) have a goal of not rendering existing > implementations of Internet standards non-compliant with updates to > said standards? Is this even a valid question (see point (a) above)?? No, because we are defining compliance in the new document. > (It's clear we still care first and foremost about > interoperability/compatibility when it comes to updating existing > Standards-Track RFCs. As we should. I hope that doesn't come into > question.) Agree. --Paul Hoffman= From markus.lanthaler@gmx.net Fri Mar 1 10:01:03 2013 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 2FCEE21F9122 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:01:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V1jdS1WJCp7l for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:01:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8F821F910B for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:01:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.17]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LfDpm-1UZWPl1gGu-00okOh for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:01:01 +0100 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Mar 2013 18:01:01 -0000 Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp017) with SMTP; 01 Mar 2013 19:01:01 +0100 X-Authenticated: #419883 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX192EOUeIOx2JBpXdWMPtpOUzACEsOJ6OpftolMeQR d5eJ4hPG7m5BeX From: "Markus Lanthaler" To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130228170825.09fcfa20@elandnews.com> <8CD7BE2E-6824-4421-A021-BB3BBBA056D5@vpnc.org> <5130D12C.2000004@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <5130D12C.2000004@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:00:53 +0100 Message-ID: <01c101ce16a6$b7fb8760$27f29620$@lanthaler@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac4Wlj6Cmax15ETSSa2IQ/LuzKLzVAAEGCog Content-Language: de X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:01:03 -0000 On Friday, March 01, 2013 5:03 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 3/1/13 8:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >>>> I suggest against having an initial list. It's difficult to > >>>> predict whether people will have the energy to review once > >>>> the charter has been approved. > >>> > >>> Specifically, then, you suggest that there be only the one > >>> item: make 4627 Standards Track? And then require recharter to > >>> add any other items, which would be listed as individual work > >>> items in any recharter proposal? > >> > >> That seems reasonable, given how excited people get about the > >> "any other work items" and how that excitement could delay or > >> derail the main reason you wanted the WG. The recharter effort > >> can start after 4627bis document is in IETF Last Call. It's not > >> like we're in any new rush for particular work. > > > > I've edited the charter proposal on the appsawg wiki: > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON > > +1 modulo a few typos here and there. Mind if I fix them on the wiki > page? +1 -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler From jhildebr@cisco.com Fri Mar 1 10:06:38 2013 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 275A221E8037 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:06:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uC7nIqGYzL8I for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589A221E8091 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1201; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362161197; x=1363370797; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=T54dI5CTPa9Rr/D0Gook4KcTivGY9eZqZn779r6pdDA=; b=D563cb7ZzE32vgx5Tf1H+htI/ef0sVHJ4YrsLeOFSBT9/eit86ki6rq4 j6o6BcmJq5VwriU5Lp9YReg9VKqzJbrmmc8CJUtm9q1hU2MaX0HgXeN04 CiVsmmrpf/X3gktRskYiqAotkE4jIvQa8dCOPRMJ1pz7PXPGKLfoA0SAS Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAKXtMFGtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABEwjx/FnOCIQEEAQEBNzQLEgEIIhQ3CyUCBAENBQgMh38MwSMEjmwxB4JfYQOnLoMIgic X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,762,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="182743934" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 18:06:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21I6af3016808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:06:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:06:36 -0600 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: Paul Hoffman , Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON Thread-Index: AQHOFoa1mtOhGFIzGkOoTld8oagPt5iRfM4A//+UZQA= Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:06:35 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.96] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5C7A40FDF620204EB09320E0FC28C509@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:06:38 -0000 (individual) I'm fine with the text as it currently sits. (chair) Does the current text give anyone heartburn? I'll start another thread mid-next week to make sure. On 3/1/13 10:31 AM, "Paul Hoffman" wrote: >I made two more small changes to the proposed charter; comments are >welcome. > >- Changed the community review sentence to say "There are also a number >of other JSON-related proposals for Standards Track that would benefit >from review from both the IETF and the larger JSON-using communities >created by a working group focused on JSON" to indicate that we would >benefit from JSON-using developers who are currently not active in the >IETF. > >- Changed the "breaking compatibility" sentence to say "Any changes that >break compatibility with existing implementations will need to have very >strong justification and broad support, and will have to be documented in >the new RFC" to make it clear that the resulting RFC should make any >changes clear. > >--Paul Hoffman >_______________________________________________ >json mailing list >json@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --=20 Joe Hildebrand From derhoermi@gmx.net Fri Mar 1 11:15:20 2013 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 4722321F91A8 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:15:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.907 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SDWvVO1gNnRc for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:15:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4C521F8DCB for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lkmp0-1Ulf7T0KoO-00aUIW for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:15:11 +0100 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Mar 2013 19:15:10 -0000 Received: from p5B233C70.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [91.35.60.112] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 01 Mar 2013 20:15:10 +0100 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+jhXQUtXGjLUBviKm9FT3I0RRyUP0mZyAXhXn/OP bRb4MHC4VC1KFt From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:15:11 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Barry Leiba , Paul Hoffman , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:15:20 -0000 * Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: >(individual) >I'm fine with the text as it currently sits. > >(chair) >Does the current text give anyone heartburn? I'll start another thread >mid-next week to make sure. The way I look at this, there is a very small subset that works reliably (only UTF-8, no Unicode signature, all keys are unique, the top level is either array or object, and probably some other restrictions) but beyond that JSON is a highly fragmented and in need of standardisation, and the current proposal does not really convey that state of affairs and does really say what the Working Group would be expected to do about it. To illustrate, http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-XMLHttpRequest-20121206/ has a JSON loading feature that treats all JSON documents as UTF-8 encoded, even RFC 4627-compliant UTF-16-encoded ones, requires to ignore the UTF-8 BOM which normally breaks RFC 4627-compliant decoders, it allows strings and other things at the top-level that cannot be used in RFC 4627-compliant JSON, it requires to recover from UTF-8 errors in a certain way, ... If I want to implement a JSON decoder that behaves like XMLHttpRequest, then RFC 4627 cannot be used as a reference in any notable way, and if the Working Group makes all the changes needed to do exactly what the XMLHttpRequest feature does, then that's not "minimal" and does "break compatibility" and goes well beyond simply putting JSON on the standards track, as far as I am concerned. And if it doesn't do this and XHR isn't changed (and XMLHttpRequest is just an example, all sorts of libraries and other things have similar inconsistencies) then we'll have W3C-JSON and IETF-JSON and more, outside the common subset noted above. -- Bj�rn H�hrmann � mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de � http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 � Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 � http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dageb�ll � PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 � http://www.websitedev.de/ From sayrer@gmail.com Fri Mar 1 12:47:48 2013 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 453E221F8E6C for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:47:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SysArNkLchug for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FEA21F8E69 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so2829713wge.22 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:47:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1J3iJR1UaHIcAOavH3sX3A61pLw+f3U0VECMJjj43Gk=; b=hZvCH5EH8lQ2wYQGA+CaddfAPe1CDCLUBqbYgeOuArANVb4fPXHZUa4F2tyHL9uZ/R agaDwejZr0knRmXfSgukVz9vIYwKCnXKoJFmqjq91Wj8TwRxlM71XTZW+ahu+8aMqcj1 9jqeEDO5bqjxP+6UEntB+dNteHwlXyV4deyr4NO0FFJA5z/wf746goM5yZKyFJgYueJ3 Olp89U2ZfXSb3t+2mo/fZrpx/Xjx0QLnuYC7r7LfH+Bz8DxASj36+l4EhWUht3Sk1RYB jhu04hbDKVyDpH+BcZznx1byGD+ZGRoyQ5jHf+EEG0xGhb5FLVywMzIeQptH8xFV4nsh mbQQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.21.233 with SMTP id y9mr13038311wje.47.1362170866402; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:47:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.138.170 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:47:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:47:46 -0600 Message-ID: From: Robert Sayre To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d27749d8d6a04d6e31ed5 Cc: Barry Leiba , Paul Hoffman , "json@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:47:48 -0000 --047d7b5d27749d8d6a04d6e31ed5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Friday, March 1, 2013, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > (individual) > I'm fine with the text as it currently sits. > > (chair) > Does the current text give anyone heartburn? I'll start another thread > mid-next week to make sure. > > I agree with Bjoern that the charter isn't specific enough wrt the delta between ES5 and the RFC. Adopting the changes in ES5 would seem to be the best way get consistency. However, it sounds like some folks on this list would rather standardize a narrow RFC4267-derived update. I do not think that work would be valuable. - Rob > > On 3/1/13 10:31 AM, "Paul Hoffman" > > wrote: > > >I made two more small changes to the proposed charter; comments are > >welcome. > > > >- Changed the community review sentence to say "There are also a number > >of other JSON-related proposals for Standards Track that would benefit > >from review from both the IETF and the larger JSON-using communities > >created by a working group focused on JSON" to indicate that we would > >benefit from JSON-using developers who are currently not active in the > >IETF. > > > >- Changed the "breaking compatibility" sentence to say "Any changes that > >break compatibility with existing implementations will need to have very > >strong justification and broad support, and will have to be documented in > >the new RFC" to make it clear that the resulting RFC should make any > >changes clear. > > > >--Paul Hoffman > >_______________________________________________ > >json mailing list > >json@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > > > > > -- > Joe Hildebrand > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --047d7b5d27749d8d6a04d6e31ed5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Friday, March 1, 2013, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
(individual)
I'm fine with the text as it currently sits.

(chair)
Does the current text give anyone heartburn? =A0I'll start another thre= ad
mid-next week to make sure.

I agree with Bjoern tha= t the charter isn't specific enough wrt the delta between ES5 and the R= FC. Adopting the changes in ES5 would seem to be the best way get consisten= cy.

However,=A0it sounds like some folks=A0on = this list would rather standardize a narrow=A0RFC4267-derived update. I do = not think that work would be valuable.

- Rob

=A0

On 3/1/13 10:31 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.= hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>I made two more small changes to the proposed charter; comments are
>welcome.
>
>- Changed the community review sentence to say "There are also a n= umber
>of other JSON-related proposals for Standards Track that would benefit<= br> >from review from both the IETF and the larger JSON-using communities >created by a working group focused on JSON" to indicate that we wo= uld
>benefit from JSON-using developers who are currently not active in the<= br> >IETF.
>
>- Changed the "breaking compatibility" sentence to say "= Any changes that
>break compatibility with existing implementations will need to have ver= y
>strong justification and broad support, and will have to be documented = in
>the new RFC" to make it clear that the resulting RFC should make a= ny
>changes clear.
>
>--Paul Hoffman
>_______________________________________________
>json mailing list
>json@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

--
Joe Hildebrand

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

--047d7b5d27749d8d6a04d6e31ed5-- From frsyuki@gmail.com Mon Mar 4 00:01:21 2013 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 385B921F8868; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:01:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7ZdUKijPp0Y; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:01:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-da0-f50.google.com (mail-da0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE6121F886A; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-da0-f50.google.com with SMTP id h15so2426716dan.37 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:01:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=esE5O15hpYl+P0Ek4vPjVxrX2iYE4w7pIYUDi9hdF+o=; b=lDgbbYAiR7E6PZDbE5G64dvzAEVspkzFaN7lT/UGkN+1rCkkvFfIAyN2XOQV0lmVaL fZty6zVLcvxM3oLI2FXt0Yt3KzYFgVqj7VP+BEfyK5aP6VK21ddx5McDtmkpKUfihDqc jaJTjs8/zTKM2aIkt70SxR12RgyuACv/JutfWJMprshsZd3k7ns5+SDkY03H1tHPHos5 vKXfOdYTB5En2fWtZq8JCkoA6jjzT/mqXFIeXMfFi1zNRXKIzKhrlHKzGVlZKkcw7Dxj iSXn17cO9Yd2VCKbzzXlPVXgOwaDeHra9m1QVakxVlmXLb+JKI/3wqC3/mwYTODAEobJ nOeg== X-Received: by 10.68.129.163 with SMTP id nx3mr27161899pbb.13.1362384076928; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (c-98-248-36-6.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [98.248.36.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ol7sm21486662pbb.14.2013.03.04.00.01.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:01:14 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 $1499$) From: Sadayuki Furuhashi In-Reply-To: <85CB7BA1-2C92-4C52-A1C3-7FD430396725@tzi.org> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:01:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <284DE42D-B03B-450D-865B-C2914D6C0681@gmail.com> References: <7EB82E7A-F664-46F8-8137-83DF0C3F5536@tzi.org> <85CB7BA1-2C92-4C52-A1C3-7FD430396725@tzi.org> To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "json@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: Carsten Bormann , "Joe Hildebrand $jhildebr$" Subject: Re: [Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF) X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:01:21 -0000 I'm frsyuki (Sadyuki Furuhashi). As the initial developer of the MessagePack specification, I am feeling = unrest in bringing MessagePack to IETF as an Internet-Draft at this very = moment. I don't against having a standard itself but I really have difficulty on = its downside: incompatibility. Because at least I already have hundreds TBs of data stored in = MessagePack format. And there're already many other users who don't expect incompatible = changes. Here is a list of users: (This list is quite old, though. There're more users now. You'll see the = list includes Pinterest, Redis, etc.) http://wiki.msgpack.org/display/MSGPACK/PoweredBy Thus compatibility is an essential problem of msgpack. So I can't help = opposing drafts which are incompatible with MessagePack. Another problem which makes this decision complicated is that we're = discussing on changing the msgpack spec. We'll likely add string or binary type to msgpack. = Prof. Dr. Bormann kindly joined us to help happening this change. But we have not updated = implementations based on the new spec yet. It's not validated by users. It means that we need to = disscuss about the change of spec, implement it in many languages, validate them on = production environments, and write documents. I don't think we can make them all happen soon, at = the same time. I don't against having a standard itself but we're not prepared to start = it now. However, even writing an individual Internet-Draft under my name is an our possible = option. Meaning that sooner or later, we'll have a document about the new MessagePack spec = (which includes the string/binary types). I can't commit the timing at this time, = though. We're focunsing on the new spec right now. Let me keep updated about discussion on our issue thread: https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack/issues/129 -- Sadayuki Furuhashi http://fluentd.org http://msgpack.org twitter:@frsyuki On 2013/02/24, at 5:11, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > On Feb 19, 2013, at 17:39, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 >> On Feb 19, 2013, at 00:47, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" = wrote: >>=20 >>> As an individual, I'm +1 on that. I love msgpack, and don't mind = the >>> addition of UTF8 as a separate type. Was frsyuki involved in the = draft, >>> or at least know that it happened? >>=20 >> I tried to involve him. >=20 > Well, I did engage the msgpack community some more. >=20 > You can find a transcript of some 275 messages about separating byte = and UTF-8 strings at: >=20 > https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack/issues/121 >=20 > Summary: > Some members of the msgpack community are very enraged that this = change hasn't happened earlier. > Of course, some have gone off and done their own incompatible forks. > Others are very enraged that any change is happening at all, and that = new people are intruding on their turf. > (And some probably feel guilty that it took a ****storm from outside = to finally make this change.) >=20 > frsyuki is now working on a proposal that solves the problem: >=20 > https://gist.github.com/frsyuki/5022569 >=20 > The proposal is technically complete (and has already been = implemented). > It already is pretty good at the details, too, but this whole thing is = being done in a process that is closer to Japanese consensus processes = than to IETF culture. >=20 > My -01 will be fully aligned with whatever the state of frsyuki's = proposal will be on Monday's I-D deadline (find today's snapshot at = http://www.tzi.de/~cabo/draft-bormann-apparea-bpack-01pre2.txt). > (frsyuki's proposal may change some more, but those will in all = likelihood be minor details.) > I think his overall thinking is fine, but it is much more dominated by = a requirement for backwards compatibility than an IETF process would be. >=20 > So, the larger question on whether the msgpack community is ready to = take part (or just endure) in an IETF-style consensus process (including = handing over change control) still looms. >=20 > That doesn't diminish from the requirement for a msgpack-like format, = and I think we should use Hallway Time in Orlando to discuss potential = ways forward. >=20 > I any case, I definitely don't want to disturb the constructive = discussion about chartering a very narrow JSON fixup WG with this work. > (I do want to find a home for it, soon, though: I want to build other = specs on top of it.) >=20 > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten >=20 > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From jhildebr@cisco.com Mon Mar 4 10:36:51 2013 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 E185E21F8DEE; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:36:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oKIcZ9dnIWC3; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3617821F8DEF; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:36:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2599; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362422211; x=1363631811; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=UaJ23J4UgoPOsu5rXadWVlP2WMbZYezZtRUaOKH73FI=; b=SqoDkwHbfwM1MmIybGKeSgkFEPxmiqV6VVu6XqyAFM2YEuqjj9OI4B6B dQqZHfLk1nz5haEzkpviU89zPoMBciTqeweULgPCPFMZHPGPG8or9q6Mz baltZX3LNQ17tYZ7duOmzbcfWdiRpTd5ohHWbN1Ec4Qo1OLVKDFZVnuIO g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAGLoNFGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABEwlCBAhZzgiEBBDo0CxIBCA4UFDERJQIEAQ0FCAyHbQMPukUNiQaMRYIXMQeCX2EDkwOBZI0zhRiDCIIn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,781,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="183362163" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2013 18:36:50 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r24IankS007933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:36:49 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:36:49 -0600 From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" To: Sadayuki Furuhashi , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "json@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF) Thread-Index: AQHOGK6GjXC91KM//kqvccEDh6QfLJiVzFIA Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:36:49 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <284DE42D-B03B-450D-865B-C2914D6C0681@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.96] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2F48893120B9364CA34A46F04F7BF3A2@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: [Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF) X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:36:52 -0000 On 3/4/13 1:01 AM, "Sadayuki Furuhashi" wrote: >I'm frsyuki (Sadyuki Furuhashi). > >As the initial developer of the MessagePack specification, I am feeling >unrest >in bringing MessagePack to IETF as an Internet-Draft at this very moment. > >I don't against having a standard itself but I really have difficulty on >its downside: incompatibility. (as individual) We had a similar unrest about bringing XMPP to the IETF the first time. We wrote very strict charter language about backward compatibility, and became highly involved in the process. It turned out to be a very positive experience on the whole. We got lots of reviews from folks that had not paid attention to XMPP before, including security, internationalization, and the clarity of our documentation. The current RFCs are so much better than we would have produced on our own that I can't imagine not having done the work, now. The authors from our community got credit in the RFCs for their work; there was no lack of respect for their previous efforts. Another reason why msgpack is interesting to consider for standardization is that I for one would like to use it as the wire protocol for standards-based protocols. In order to do this today, I would would probably need to do one of: - Include whatever subset of msgpack I want to use into the new protocols. This would be awful, because then each other protocol that wanted to use msgpack would need to do the same thing, and they would all choose slightly incompatible approaches. - Refer to your existing web page as the msgpack specification. This would be difficult to use as a "stable reference", since it doesn't come from a standards body with previously-vetted intellectual property rules, and we don't know how often it will change. - Invent something new that tried to solve the same problem, perhaps using a method that avoids reusing your work. This would be the worst possible outcome for the industry, since having two completely different approaches to the same problem is a recipe for years of incompatibility. I'm sorry if the communications you've had with people that participate in the IETF have made your community feel as if we're trying to take over your idea, have made you feel disrespected, or that we want to force backward-incompatibilities on you. At least from my personal point of view, your work to date has been exemplary, and it is a measure of my respect that I would like to help enable that work to be used by even more people. --=20 Joe Hildebrand From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Mon Mar 4 10:57:14 2013 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 8D4DC21F8DAE for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pVmzCFisnIwq for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFCD21F8DAC for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-12.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r24Iv6kF046463 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:57:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 $1499$) From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:57:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0FD44EC8-2656-4F7B-B5F4-534131061E8B@vpnc.org> References: <4F511CA8-1FC1-46AF-BC22-C64F2C63C052@vpnc.org>

To: Robert Sayre X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: Barry Leiba , json@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Json] Comments on proposed charter for JSON X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation $JSON$." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: ,