From nobody Sat Jul 4 11:27:20 2020 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 808503A0C18 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 11:27:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 hAFtdqGNi1Eo for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 11:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (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 DF5F73A0C13 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 11:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id o8so35071085wmh.4 for ; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 11:27:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=drqcfNOt5D9oUQDYZUfl7MpBYniTS8BgM18S60C4m7g=; b=uebpkPhRuMMybC77RYYcCfi0ncKD/5KPOgtO6SkeOdR2/J+Xe3kOd6iNpDTyDovNcm FwdLxuacc4gKWEmvsbGP5s6hFD47iie7McE5zn7wWDBQxIvL/HAJxwVUL0JfNgR2e2zg tGIaCzA+uG+dpGQiQAZEKGK7mhuFeKP0e/9agOueQ17r3070od8mLTJWAn0ahFraefNv IM3PujtQ+z4NuJqhH3iAdikqs+D6aYgMI9+XglVpF1yDJG3wPSrI96BENkqaiQQV0wtU CLCNyrVdUO1vLeix4LZkmwRQEFfGecXVZd9YL1XNRqrtW5fUBzNhJNIcyEYX0BUkeuLr iakQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=drqcfNOt5D9oUQDYZUfl7MpBYniTS8BgM18S60C4m7g=; b=JGbHXPtpnR83xFrcSDagRUabVR0Y5e9ce1ZPqLsURwcAFDq9C64PNf/oy5EEYXjbYQ HAqrz2CmVNNkOrXphGeG2NH72MwWbb0yPg7DYAvPQemkubEVmHtNBN1vrDoNSxoikp6D jLfhw9dABCFWbltYXaCIrGDGdM1iLJGkLkVgEtpZNyh1q2fzakHg0kE+Ml8zFtpsoGE1 sbvqXrLDZyGx5i4kAHO3hAq+SCG3OxzHXKfzlKaTfX+MngVZc0qhwJu3/jja1s20PEXB TTemTiAdf1H0NBgr8Uf8MphXQZVviAAA72ZzH2fjIcOq9PmGikn/GyYJcCck+JTScb1b W9aw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532s8AZ2280oJblyY3nF5YrniEDAbL1sb/NggFH17togRCwSc6M9 RPktOCrxQqmXpTPD8H2pdvcvFtM6Fg4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxtT60ZbGkgxGLck0Fxi0utYbH4ztWRMwSOF0ANZRz6Z37qt6tLhqKmtvwG0lcQg2EgVpINcA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6408:: with SMTP id y8mr41004392wmb.122.1593887234872; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 11:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.79] (25.131.146.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.146.131.25]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z1sm17794418wru.30.2020.07.04.11.27.13 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Jul 2020 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT) References: To: "json@ietf.org" From: Anders Rundgren X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Message-ID: <715bce33-a744-5a97-8c6b-c7d2b27510f2@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 20:27:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Json] RFC 8785 - JSON Canonicalization Scheme X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 04 Jul 2020 18:27:19 -0000 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785 In case you would like to test what you can do with JSON canonicalization, there are two public Web applications at your disposal: Using JWS: https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs Using an "unwrapped" JWS called Java Signature Format (JSF): https://mobilepki.org/jsf-lab A real-world implementation from OWASP using JSF: https://cyclonedx.org/use-cases/#authenticity In Saturn JSF is not only a security solution, it is also used for counter-signatures to simplify state-holding in payment systems: https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/saturn/hybrid-payment.html#6 By securely embedding related messages in each other (aka "Russian doll"), there is no need for external references to previous messages. Enjoy! Anders From nobody Sun Jul 5 18:10:59 2020 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 B1CCB3A0CE9 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 18:10:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=segment.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 xWbm1npr2SAR for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 1B68C3A0CE6 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 18:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id v8so37568221iox.2 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 18:10:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=segment.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M7j92A29fq4YY2PoB1MJumNClb6RioajxmYUEpkmUGI=; b=mto6vQq2EddOY6p1h0wqxhqO+X4Kz+aT+JCbSwJJsYAE6/3rFbOmKVxis3Ab9FV69j JBIS0TxnEZLrZPT/S1uZlGGcKQjvLTROc19zDLCnD/bqe7pELSjx4LQoDMgb8VGrh4dH Xf0BgmA9LDm8ceZhejffnndbzcDoxvGkqBIOc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M7j92A29fq4YY2PoB1MJumNClb6RioajxmYUEpkmUGI=; b=HCxp52y143Y0yxjkzbXTgDR+Kna4OGhORIMMnU7XN/pZUKeETrwzpj9SfKcfd5j8wJ zK3ajLnnmv05uBEcW8Wut//gpe0mG8jQbNwpVA974VRo/mNcWs0fB2HvgZG9y7+XdLf7 damiEniTRSYBHEBYjd3KN+ArJkhmsJPMnK4uZPFFs6moPqOceuAjKK0zPDWQ65OSawKx yjpVzHT5YAAxQWek3iJNLbuv080++FtisxH6ITLSCD9G6UOwKkyOwUzZVG+R0TQMbzuY Mx1mJnDjSHEqEnKPDgZDGwZASnejpxH5DC6pH78Br4Ce56KWoFrwPyRR9vX8d5LgTdni b6BA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532syR7AkhXNoQ4yhI/Kij5fMSkWqkYFQW/FQB2oEEvLox9jj4wk v7DN1fnLKr2GyWUjDdgorcGsU8+djDfUEVoRM1Rfew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVUSWLSKuEaMnTJ7kPBveIigVaqS3F3Ww3cg4i3sft01R0pS01/lG51hTnw6ZUyIOuQnvPD8exaq0GgGl2rio= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b483:: with SMTP id d125mr22989176iof.186.1593997854052; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 18:10:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <715bce33-a744-5a97-8c6b-c7d2b27510f2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <715bce33-a744-5a97-8c6b-c7d2b27510f2@gmail.com> From: Ulysse Carion Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 18:10:33 -0700 Message-ID: To: Anders Rundgren Cc: "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] RFC 8785 - JSON Canonicalization Scheme X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 06 Jul 2020 01:10:58 -0000 Hi Anders, Nice job with JCS. I've taken a stab at implementing it here (in Golang), because I have a possible use for something like this, and your Golang reference implementation wasn't super usable as-is: https://github.com/ucarion/jcs Overall, I think this document makes sense, and -- given its prerequisites -- is the design any one of us would have landed on given time to meditate on the details. I usually specifically avoid embedding signatures within the data being signed, but when that's not an option JCS seems a quite reasonable choice. Two notes on what you could do to help future implementers: 1. I wish you could provide some sort of script that generates floating-point test-cases, instead of having folks download a 3.8G file if they want to make sure they're correctly aping JavaScript's float-to-string algorithm. 2. I don't understand why implementations MUST detect and error on invalid surrogate pairs. For implementations that aren't implementing their own JSON parser at the same time, doing so may not always be possible. Can you elaborate on the reasoning, and maybe offer implementers guidance on the relevant parts of the Unicode spec? A prospective implementer already needs to go pretty deep into the hairy details of floating-point numbers and character encoding, and a bit of guidance in the developer portal would go a long way. These are just details. Overall, I think JCS is quite nicely done. Thanks for making this. Best, Ulysse On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:27 AM Anders Rundgren wrote: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785 > > In case you would like to test what you can do with JSON canonicalization, there are two public Web applications at your disposal: > Using JWS: https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs > Using an "unwrapped" JWS called Java Signature Format (JSF): https://mobilepki.org/jsf-lab > > A real-world implementation from OWASP using JSF: https://cyclonedx.org/use-cases/#authenticity > > In Saturn JSF is not only a security solution, it is also used for counter-signatures to simplify state-holding in payment systems: > https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/saturn/hybrid-payment.html#6 > > By securely embedding related messages in each other (aka "Russian doll"), there is no need for external references to previous messages. > > Enjoy! > > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From nobody Sun Jul 5 20:05:01 2020 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 0CC3C3A0E11 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 20:04:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ccil-org.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 iWqaN94-4X2F for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 20:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf32.google.com (mail-qv1-xf32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f32]) (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 765593A0E0D for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 20:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf32.google.com with SMTP id t7so16592189qvl.8 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 20:04:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lKVPgutc7LNrQM5W45n+PUqtDC5PGQyxx7znNHijqkE=; b=qCqX/VclzGeVGazcit08X9pX+7+iql5Vz5reiamWYhHYqcmwEb6A4azCiP433kP12h 91feiw33ZpMUSRWJymPE3zc7DGqTKDKH8bzRziRiMItFsNrwYH12lLdSPKKt4v5ATCNS BJJ7U0FXq6wdgmFm6gyQdzCDvLkpYwMNZxn9hLf7FKWGrHfeZ+9/ybuLnC/qnG7gWJHA Cb2A+qfWmsKtR+ctM3oG5VbzQI8OIA3kRVH/uRI95W0srQc3T2wqmCt+qIPkHx4bAuYN XjpTD12pZ5IiPlHVVQfOJ62ZAh3noRFK94cAqKynv9ZQTH1YvNuts21EfiHdPuAqdrCz R1tA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lKVPgutc7LNrQM5W45n+PUqtDC5PGQyxx7znNHijqkE=; b=e6kWvpmGCNrj4ZEANPoWp0HBpCaQ6f0UtW+HIqcX9sVcYGQItiv7gGQ5RazzdMOzgY EYWeXx0JAhZyNCiySmqU+/DufrIsQ1Znw5kSQ2FyfNsrJ3lSFOxzXJGTlsDYXNdQOKW2 A3tsoP3npG+qMqYBaN90k+87vdsJ9TEz4iFAkZpVrEf/cPLQc5iCc0utEeC3zrdMKana wFkjVEn3RObdSeVFEegW83LTX35E1HdrXRwTS8r6r1dQQXfuPIr1zDasuEf289mCRfhm 7g8zyU0Lvacubp3X7ya4Z8OLMWRfwiV+x8rt5I1BvzlsMo1KHJVQ0p4gFoYK9BTbaTJM woXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Tmg6RibhwdMneBgD/H3ZIwf6B6c9YypN0ixX22Bu9QqFohawh RjMojCTXFgPqFTjdpszLXZs7p7E9JlVtNmz3StU51A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwV6JiLzTpV1fa9iwRhOaeIT3/2xiDzQ6nBQo6ew/PRA8Po0GaROCi8gJ8vge4v9lKvl9piITje8aixf0kYnxk= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b2d1:: with SMTP id d17mr35067054qvf.100.1594004689946; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 20:04:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <715bce33-a744-5a97-8c6b-c7d2b27510f2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: John Cowan Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 23:04:38 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ulysse Carion Cc: Anders Rundgren , "json@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050a48b05a9bd23ab" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] RFC 8785 - JSON Canonicalization Scheme X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 06 Jul 2020 03:05:00 -0000 --00000000000050a48b05a9bd23ab Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" We need to catch and reject unpaired surrogates because all the world isn't Java, JavaScript, and C#. Languages that deal in UTF-8 literally have no way to represent unpaired surrogates, and shouldn't have to do something horribly wrong to handle them. On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 9:11 PM Ulysse Carion wrote: > Hi Anders, > > Nice job with JCS. I've taken a stab at implementing it here (in > Golang), because I have a possible use for something like this, and > your Golang reference implementation wasn't super usable as-is: > > https://github.com/ucarion/jcs > > Overall, I think this document makes sense, and -- given its > prerequisites -- is the design any one of us would have landed on > given time to meditate on the details. I usually specifically avoid > embedding signatures within the data being signed, but when that's not > an option JCS seems a quite reasonable choice. > > Two notes on what you could do to help future implementers: > > 1. I wish you could provide some sort of script that generates > floating-point test-cases, instead of having folks download a 3.8G > file if they want to make sure they're correctly aping JavaScript's > float-to-string algorithm. > > 2. I don't understand why implementations MUST detect and error on > invalid surrogate pairs. For implementations that aren't implementing > their own JSON parser at the same time, doing so may not always be > possible. Can you elaborate on the reasoning, and maybe offer > implementers guidance on the relevant parts of the Unicode spec? A > prospective implementer already needs to go pretty deep into the hairy > details of floating-point numbers and character encoding, and a bit of > guidance in the developer portal would go a long way. > > These are just details. Overall, I think JCS is quite nicely done. > Thanks for making this. > > Best, > Ulysse > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:27 AM Anders Rundgren > wrote: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785 > > > > In case you would like to test what you can do with JSON > canonicalization, there are two public Web applications at your disposal: > > Using JWS: https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs > > Using an "unwrapped" JWS called Java Signature Format (JSF): > https://mobilepki.org/jsf-lab > > > > A real-world implementation from OWASP using JSF: > https://cyclonedx.org/use-cases/#authenticity > > > > In Saturn JSF is not only a security solution, it is also used for > counter-signatures to simplify state-holding in payment systems: > > https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/saturn/hybrid-payment.html#6 > > > > By securely embedding related messages in each other (aka "Russian > doll"), there is no need for external references to previous messages. > > > > Enjoy! > > > > Anders > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --00000000000050a48b05a9bd23ab Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We need to catch and reject unpaired surrogates because al= l the world isn't Java, JavaScript, and C#.=C2=A0 Languages that deal i= n UTF-8 literally have no way to represent unpaired surrogates, and shouldn= 't have=C2=A0to do something horribly wrong to handle them.

On Sun, Jul = 5, 2020 at 9:11 PM Ulysse Carion <= ulysse@segment.com> wrote:
Hi Anders,

Nice job with JCS. I've taken a stab at implementing it here (in
Golang), because I have a possible use for something like this, and
your Golang reference implementation wasn't super usable as-is:

https://github.com/ucarion/jcs

Overall, I think this document makes sense, and -- given its
prerequisites -- is the design any one of us would have landed on
given time to meditate on the details. I usually specifically avoid
embedding signatures within the data being signed, but when that's not<= br> an option JCS seems a quite reasonable choice.

Two notes on what you could do to help future implementers:

1. I wish you could provide some sort of script that generates
floating-point test-cases, instead of having folks download a 3.8G
file if they want to make sure they're correctly aping JavaScript's=
float-to-string algorithm.

2. I don't understand why implementations MUST detect and error on
invalid surrogate pairs. For implementations that aren't implementing their own JSON parser at the same time, doing so may not always be
possible. Can you elaborate on the reasoning, and maybe offer
implementers guidance on the relevant parts of the Unicode spec? A
prospective implementer already needs to go pretty deep into the hairy
details of floating-point numbers and character encoding, and a bit of
guidance in the developer portal would go a long way.

These are just details. Overall, I think JCS is quite nicely done.
Thanks for making this.

Best,
Ulysse


On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:27 AM Anders Rundgren
<ande= rs.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785
>
> In case you would like to test what you can do with JSON canonicalizat= ion, there are two public Web applications at your disposal:
> Using JWS: https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs
> Using an "unwrapped" JWS called Java Signature Format (JSF):= https://mobilepki.org/jsf-lab
>
> A real-world implementation from OWASP using JSF: = https://cyclonedx.org/use-cases/#authenticity
>
> In Saturn JSF is not only a security solution, it is also used for cou= nter-signatures to simplify state-holding in payment systems:
> https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/s= aturn/hybrid-payment.html#6
>
> By securely embedding related messages in each other (aka "Russia= n doll"), there is no need for external references to previous message= s.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Anders
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--00000000000050a48b05a9bd23ab-- From nobody Mon Jul 6 06:57:43 2020 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 A46E03A1515 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 xEjLV79VtDLP for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x344.google.com (mail-wm1-x344.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) (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 937D73A1510 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x344.google.com with SMTP id l17so39483354wmj.0 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:57:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3n7VX37dlkpJW3xqkZq8yOjn0KG66Ge21erq9RE9BYY=; b=lIut0F8q0ezMSH0AtnN0PpaXyF5rcSSuQuAXoN9i28wqX3j4/IQzUgboE1Vd+E8oMX 9q8vFFEttSio504Y5Ejbh2y0dLhm1ctOZyoOmZL+qFBLPpkSPl3v6A1GURe6Y23C7B9m 10lfB6Va1GpSvxDbw25rJHGcHrBZsxYOfkUr7QiUB0v+ztqWaShr/+JHf4c18rs0g6fd v1Hq2kYjcMklDj9qlZwTI+DIE5EbirVT6saJZeDF3cGqfy52ErLe6KkQKUqL6Bkjoc/i n2nPVGAqQCSUvAKgFV80sI3KjSeWcRUuVRP74Pc0ZKrsjUAYdjmGxU3Q0Qh+yJvAEk3i tJ+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3n7VX37dlkpJW3xqkZq8yOjn0KG66Ge21erq9RE9BYY=; b=bXHx2N16ax/HD89N2XYPL5MruQVbFx6du0KN64x+FlE2fjZQlzRNoY//ZPz47T83z9 tJaDdhEm5H+bdspxog9R/MjofUnoCXx/iTVazfPqPEl9jXh66M9AMdWWpyamhMZ4vHoE K3lAQd0RuAqWwKKKjRVbMaudGtazDrT10lQ+uEWMR8wDA899/f9L6+SFnqV+XUtTpTVm oVULZL6bIdT/BAOrTGbdgjbeQy4+86iouM5+XtKVMhzlhtcx4BOFpmUnwAFvGwKvkCaN n3xsAqsqjpUQvJS2hnDswl/oM+MeZMErpPiFOBHRnR/dx2FYbnIiL907FnoE137Y90Aa cZaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BPxk/LoTIwk54teMaKbIEoohWiRO2Yjh7bknXHodqeMxcfTpm rsm0f8KDvBQyfuWnKZ792XchF0Em5sc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOW7mwR+R2NfLkmFQJPCMxghfiZdd4qP8jpuxWp3XCFXrHA4B2ZsW9LIP3A0BtEed0X0Q3BA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:bc54:: with SMTP id m81mr42390329wmf.22.1594043848570; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.79] (25.131.146.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.146.131.25]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 12sm23082645wmg.6.2020.07.06.06.57.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:57:27 -0700 (PDT) To: Ulysse Carion Cc: "json@ietf.org" References: <715bce33-a744-5a97-8c6b-c7d2b27510f2@gmail.com> From: Anders Rundgren Message-ID: <7d822b82-0a92-7da0-0dcf-6a7ae3456dab@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 15:57:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] RFC 8785 - JSON Canonicalization Scheme X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 06 Jul 2020 13:57:33 -0000 On 2020-07-06 03:10, Ulysse Carion wrote: > Hi Anders, Hi Ulysse, > > Nice job with JCS. I've taken a stab at implementing it here (in > Golang), because I have a possible use for something like this, and > your Golang reference implementation wasn't super usable as-is: > > https://github.com/ucarion/jcs Great job! Your code (modulo comments) weighed in at a mere 200 lines. > Overall, I think this document makes sense, and -- given its > prerequisites -- is the design any one of us would have landed on > given time to meditate on the details. Well, we didn't exactly "landed" there; RFC 8785 represents a third and complete rewrite. Although working, the previous attempts were pretty much c**p from an implementation point-of-view. Without the great (but sometimes rather dismissive) input from the IETF community, it would maybe never even had happened :) > I usually specifically avoid > embedding signatures within the data being signed, but when that's not > an option JCS seems a quite reasonable choice. In my case the ability to (in a reasonable manner), serialize a signed HTTP request was *one* of the biggest motivations. AFAICT, none of the current efforts in the IETF, the W3C or more recently in ETSI, have this capability. > Two notes on what you could do to help future implementers: > > 1. I wish you could provide some sort of script that generates > floating-point test-cases, instead of having folks download a 3.8G > file if they want to make sure they're correctly aping JavaScript's > float-to-string algorithm. I'm currently spending my limited cycles on the next steps on this journey which will take a lot of work although they are (IMO) technically ready as well as implemented: https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/security/jsf.html https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/security/jef.html > > 2. I don't understand why implementations MUST detect and error on > invalid surrogate pairs. For implementations that aren't implementing > their own JSON parser at the same time, doing so may not always be > possible. Can you elaborate on the reasoning, and maybe offer > implementers guidance on the relevant parts of the Unicode spec? If you don't honor all parts of a specification, you may run into interoperability problems. JCS is supposed to be "complete" but I'm sure that most people (currently including myself...), won't bother to death about this particular requirement in their actual implementations... > A prospective implementer already needs to go pretty deep into the hairy > details of floating-point numbers and character encoding, and a bit of > guidance in the developer portal would go a long way. There is hope: https://github.com/ulfjack/ryu/issues/87#issuecomment-646550719 > These are just details. Overall, I think JCS is quite nicely done. > Thanks for making this. Thanx, Anders > > Best, > Ulysse > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:27 AM Anders Rundgren > wrote: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785 >> >> In case you would like to test what you can do with JSON canonicalization, there are two public Web applications at your disposal: >> Using JWS: https://mobilepki.org/jws-jcs >> Using an "unwrapped" JWS called Java Signature Format (JSF): https://mobilepki.org/jsf-lab >> >> A real-world implementation from OWASP using JSF: https://cyclonedx.org/use-cases/#authenticity >> >> In Saturn JSF is not only a security solution, it is also used for counter-signatures to simplify state-holding in payment systems: >> https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/saturn/hybrid-payment.html#6 >> >> By securely embedding related messages in each other (aka "Russian doll"), there is no need for external references to previous messages. >> >> Enjoy! >> >> Anders >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From nobody Mon Jul 13 22:14:37 2020 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 D1B3D3A102C; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:14:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.919 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 PmrbS4Rsq5Jb; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABBFB3A105C; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B5TFy2Rqkz17pB; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 07:14:14 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Carsten Bormann Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 07:14:13 +0200 Cc: json@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 616396453.48809-57f0931c8f541d04c3fe093b442b147f Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reply-To: dispatch@ietf.org Message-Id: <77B617C1-2148-4AE6-8428-DAD43D01FBC5@tzi.org> References: <159467093010.19477.7181341398452455173@ietfa.amsl.com> To: dispatch@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 14 Jul 2020 05:14:25 -0000 (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) I would like to initiate discussion for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html It says: > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > find the right way to complete standardization of this specification. > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to > be covered. (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical = Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more = than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and = turn it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause = for writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which = happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have = JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the = specification would do good in defining how these two fit together. There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate = operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably = would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes = JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON = generic data model). Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a = short-lived targeted WG. Please discuss! Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan = Gossner" , "Carsten Bormann" = >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > Revision: 00 > Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > Document date: 2020-07-12 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 14 > URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.t= xt > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ > Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 > Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >=20 >=20 > Abstract: > insert abstract here >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Jul 13 22:32:28 2020 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 DA2243A1093 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:32:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 v88ZINleI-ho for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (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 8C7D13A1091 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id y18so10631564lfh.11 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:32:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pIoIX5AteUHnh6Z2KNOJWVr0y+sNuILejdpxjFr/D5Y=; b=gm8QoWjMi/szV2m9VMrHJmDd+06BeW3auW5Tsbs9dzDUz8KADItH6n6NgaeHEsU706 /KqtbvwOlVXhQ0232ePSeDhWYtunm8goy8akgJoNCR/axT/dW7Uhn28x0wXlkjbRo6Bb +d966OkieUe6uXozHGn9rAh536aC9UI4FM17dNDl43+UV0yMsbkmcuOZwuFNmSIh1bFv LwOttDSx6JYwtugoh5PC66P10WNuKUss7KOZLlVExRQstitV0qBK3yiikdMGKExvntqO ObCtCXJFfgPXb5Ko+V3C2ReWZ0yEFEed2UZRlWn6ydQy1lH3Wuhfnmiu5R05pj0AjJsH zAdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pIoIX5AteUHnh6Z2KNOJWVr0y+sNuILejdpxjFr/D5Y=; b=k06iDbnluuy9QpN1FIR9hgxVDlAhQxqVSjFwq6RaB0FM6kXAyP3R7/5LcR8+rFbaSw 5vtPq4JVgax2tY/h4t7NiOgmgYJmYVf+DBhjlfmEmr6tgJEWZdOHI6zZ2riMulgybgC/ lh5c9oKhbCpT593KjThFaLSuWLumLs8d/upO2//tRO6wBAyXaOpQLgb1hr+3fEuN/8Yf l2VoW3D01JxqR0mRfNOR3fvO6SjjZZ6Q27/TkigPJTiTPA78yaMv6iC2JwwAk6EdIXUp txYJd71RFF0wMNRkUzAlH16gfwGFdUyA+bNQ4P1IRb/cBwmgBY7wAnrR5DTK8ymhRcoi Ulwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531t4GQV0AAAzu4nlUVkPRpO7xMjUgj3V5sywFiFhX8XH547A+E4 zesBHnjY+dykUaT2cU8YqsDhqunmV7fcUpkYSZOgdvoRe5c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMwFogvX2gUSLErP48dvnn5NQFHMQBQBuXxQ65nob8f7mchla12/LUbVc5gCGf4BVbsvMJI+e34JtIKug42H4= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4422:: with SMTP id w2mr1281492lfl.152.1594704720671; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:32:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <159467093010.19477.7181341398452455173@ietfa.amsl.com> <77B617C1-2148-4AE6-8428-DAD43D01FBC5@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <77B617C1-2148-4AE6-8428-DAD43D01FBC5@tzi.org> From: Tim Bray Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:31:49 -0700 Message-ID: To: dispatch@ietf.org Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000065c69005aa60201d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 14 Jul 2020 05:32:06 -0000 --00000000000065c69005aa60201d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) > > I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > > It says: > > > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > > find the right way to complete standardization of this specification. > > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to > > be covered. > > (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical > Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) > > This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more > than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn > it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause for > writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happen= s > in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON > Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the > specification would do good in defining how these two fit together. > > There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > > Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator; > this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go > ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for > querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model). > > Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a > short-lived targeted WG. > > Please discuss! > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > > To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan Gos= sner" > , "Carsten Bormann" > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > > IETF repository. > > > > Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > > Revision: 00 > > Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > > Document date: 2020-07-12 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 14 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.= txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 > > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > > > > > > Abstract: > > insert abstract here > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > --00000000000065c69005aa60201d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dur= ing my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented a usefu= l referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this work. The= re currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't b= e too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. =C2=A0

On Mon, Jul 13,= 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@= tzi.org> wrote:
(Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org)

I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessn= er-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html

It says:

> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated
> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it.
> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > find the right way to complete standardization of this specification.<= br> > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to<= br> > be covered.

(For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical Inte= rnet-Draft deadline day botch.)

This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more th= an a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn it = into a proper Internet standards document.=C2=A0 The immediate cause for wr= iting this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in= W3C) can make good use of JSONPath.=C2=A0 Clearly, we already have JSON Po= inter (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification = would do good in defining how these two fit together.

There is no active WG that immediately fits this work.

Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator; t= his might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go ah= ead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for query= ing CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model).

Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a short-l= ived targeted WG.

Please discuss!

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten



> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: in= ternet-drafts@ietf.org
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath= -00.txt
> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST
> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" <stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de>= ;, "Stefan Gossner" <stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de>, "Ca= rsten Bormann" <c= abo@tzi.org>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > IETF repository.
>
> Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpat= h
> Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A000
> Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 JSONPath= -- XPath for JSON
> Document date:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 2020-07-12
> Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individu= al Submission
> Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 14
> URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goess= ner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpa= th/
> Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00
> Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-j= sonpath
>
>
> Abstract:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0insert abstract here
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of subm= ission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
--00000000000065c69005aa60201d-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 00:37:13 2020 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 B6FFD3A11D9; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 00:37:04 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ojXb8ROAvs2H; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 00:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it (mx4.iit.cnr.it [146.48.98.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 753A73A1313; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 00:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B0FB80272; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:36:46 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx4.iit.cnr.it Received: from smtp.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4PCMrv_Hk_Y; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:36:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.12.193.108] (pc-loffredo.nic.it [192.12.193.108]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DDBEB80227; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:36:43 +0200 (CEST) To: Tim Bray , dispatch@ietf.org Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG References: <159467093010.19477.7181341398452455173@ietfa.amsl.com> <77B617C1-2148-4AE6-8428-DAD43D01FBC5@tzi.org> From: Mario Loffredo Message-ID: <467d225e-6dcf-4e5f-1101-27e4c074c6af@iit.cnr.it> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:33:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------884645419007A2EC64A0E4E8" Content-Language: it Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 14 Jul 2020 07:37:05 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------884645419007A2EC64A0E4E8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: > During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented > a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into > this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it > wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. +1 Mario > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann > wrote: > > (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org ) > > I would like to initiate discussion for > draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > > It says: > > > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > > find the right way to complete standardization of this > specification. > > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what > needs to > > be covered. > > (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; > typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) > > This is a widely implemented specification that has been around > for more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally > go ahead and turn it into a proper Internet standards document.  > The immediate cause for writing this up now is that some IoT > discovery work (some of which happens in W3C) can make good use of > JSONPath.  Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a > more limited set of applications; the specification would do good > in defining how these two fit together. > > There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > > Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate > operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which > probably would then go ahead and write up another specification > that makes JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go > beyond the JSON generic data model). > > Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating > a short-lived targeted WG. > > Please discuss! > > Grüße, Carsten > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > > To: "Stefan Gössner" >, "Stefan Gossner" > >, "Carsten Bormann" > > > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > > IETF repository. > > > > Name:         draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > > Revision:     00 > > Title:                JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > > Document date:        2020-07-12 > > Group:                Individual Submission > > Pages:                14 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 > > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > > > > > > Abstract: > >   insert abstract here > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time > of submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org . > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Dr. Mario Loffredo Systems and Technological Development Unit Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) National Research Council (CNR) via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy Phone: +39.0503153497 Mobile: +39.3462122240 Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo --------------884645419007A2EC64A0E4E8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto:
During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. 

+1

Mario


On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
(Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org)

I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html

It says:

> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated
> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it.
> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to
> find the right way to complete standardization of this specification.
> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to
> be covered.

(For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.)

This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn it into a proper Internet standards document.  The immediate cause for writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath.  Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification would do good in defining how these two fit together.

There is no active WG that immediately fits this work.

Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model).

Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a short-lived targeted WG.

Please discuss!

Grüße, Carsten



> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST
> To: "Stefan Gössner" <stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de>, "Stefan Gossner" <stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de>, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:         draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath
> Revision:     00
> Title:                JSONPath -- XPath for JSON
> Document date:        2020-07-12
> Group:                Individual Submission
> Pages:                14
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath
>
>
> Abstract:
>   insert abstract here
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>

_______________________________________________
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

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
--------------884645419007A2EC64A0E4E8-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 02:07:06 2020 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 5BC0D3A0598 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:07:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 6Uo70xoQ40js for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 86A7A3A0593 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id b6so20374749wrs.11 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:07:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nflDLKPmM/1wEYqMNpa6vr32znirCvavP3Xk6tCN3Jw=; b=qpAQI2xLUo7tkH2bkr3Pst2g22AhAMQFTDwaoFKapztO5YQbc1PC71enD5B22BECMA if3i6uhZuXUaH2kYWGtcAuTpFg6L3CdPs29low4SootT/VDw7kpsE/3YLyz1daOFOLQx /cX0BsJOa9+KGPbxcf7mdjCobQaPl2CQmeGp/xCGpYBzWMOGV2AprNXFOUxvZOPGVQo1 Z3rRCFn5rM6VSoIlUdvWBE4k6J2bXE7AhC7s0QgtHuemHu/PmhiZF1pXcxYrQ3+ig1/M W99Z2Qb9lbsy0J/V4jlEXsnt/XsqnSCG+AKbnT3nqe4KsrJbWomv4KN1lvk2bEZGlv/b u7Qg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nflDLKPmM/1wEYqMNpa6vr32znirCvavP3Xk6tCN3Jw=; b=dP9gEVed711atMyG3TlJKVELvxSbUfgqVin1lFPl9xQ4UoNc/TeJyyIKamQKw4BZiF awkz/Bi2EAC1/AlC8fvCS2Yoc7q4PnDUkY82uZHgQIIZWcZef/iD/r5w36ONwB9RUbpD 4owS7w0O+n65ao5CXXzNiSn//wkWMVyvOeIMLlYZ0VwP0rtF0FFFtx0hIpPeJ9dsUkar Waz/H6ztNBNEAV4ZLJ/5R9gsYFFNzEUL8bqMv6Dn1g0+a8ft+r0Q7LwBrYU4VmmpwZOb vl1pGgcgynrsCYI9b7s1LGfKU2BHmcuEzcp8gnfUE4biP1VfF2h4VG2XeqOM2MMI69JL EFcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530qs41P5EnQlYir78iT2ef2JrpWHQNFFabx8psIkPg2Ezc4JNiB hYpXH2shmIvub+3avD4hbUW67jBRslYdNPulW/oYlGuW X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMYUGMmm8UsXL1Xf79XJeBy20gRHkRoWxEtNSZ4lXGILYSnvJUE7FUSph/ES1X+tsYH4OG9Hwngg/2oBYxM+I= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4845:: with SMTP id n5mr3886367wrs.353.1594717620449; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:07:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Daniel P Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:06:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: JSON WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 14 Jul 2020 09:07:05 -0000 Just FYI, there is an alternative effort to propose a JSONPath standardization based on a consensus of JSONPath implementations, see https://cburgmer.github.io/json-path-comparison/ for the comparisons. They're currently putting together a Proposal A, https://github.com/cburgmer/json-path-comparison/tree/master/proposals/Prop= osal_A, including an ABNF grammar and test suite, and have invited comments. Best regards, Daniel Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: > During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented > a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into > this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it > wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. +1 Mario > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann > wrote: > > (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org ) > > I would like to initiate discussion for > draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > > It says: > > > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > > find the right way to complete standardization of this > specification. > > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what > needs to > > be covered. > > (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; > typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) > > This is a widely implemented specification that has been around > for more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally > go ahead and turn it into a proper Internet standards document. > The immediate cause for writing this up now is that some IoT > discovery work (some of which happens in W3C) can make good use of > JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a > more limited set of applications; the specification would do good > in defining how these two fit together. > > There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > > Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate > operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which > probably would then go ahead and write up another specification > that makes JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go > beyond the JSON generic data model). > > Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating > a short-lived targeted WG. > > Please discuss! > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > > To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" >, "Stefan Gossner" > >, "Carsten Bormann" > > > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to th= e > > IETF repository. > > > > Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > > Revision: 00 > > Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > > Document date: 2020-07-12 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 14 > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath= -00.txt > > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ > > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 > > Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpat= h > > > > > > Abstract: > > insert abstract here > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time > of submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org . > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --=20 Dr. Mario Loffredo Systems and Technological Development Unit Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) National Research Council (CNR) via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy Phone: +39.0503153497 Mobile: +39.3462122240 Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Carsten Bormann Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Tim Bray Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Mario Loffredo > > I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > > It says: > > > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > > find the right way to complete standardization of this specification. > > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to > > be covered. > > (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical In= ternet-Draft deadline day botch.) > > This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more = than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn i= t into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause for writi= ng this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in W3= C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (R= FC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification would do= good in defining how these two fit together. > > There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > > Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator;= this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go = ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for que= rying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model). > > Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a short= -lived targeted WG. > > Please discuss! > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-= 00.txt > > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > > To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan Gos= sner" , "Carsten Bormann" > > > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > > IETF repository. > > > > Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > > Revision: 00 > > Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > > Document date: 2020-07-12 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 14 > > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dis= patch-jsonpath-00.txt > > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatc= h-jsonpath/ > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jso= npath-00 > > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-di= spatch-jsonpath > > > > > > Abstract: > > insert abstract here > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submi= ssion > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tim Bray > To: dispatch@ietf.org > Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:31:49 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented a = useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this work= . There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't be t= oo hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) >> >> I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath= : >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html >> >> It says: >> >> > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated >> > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. >> > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to >> > find the right way to complete standardization of this specification. >> > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to >> > be covered. >> >> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical I= nternet-Draft deadline day botch.) >> >> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more= than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn = it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause for writ= ing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in W= 3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (= RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification would d= o good in defining how these two fit together. >> >> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. >> >> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator= ; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go= ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for qu= erying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model). >> >> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a shor= t-lived targeted WG. >> >> Please discuss! >> >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >> >> >> >> > Begin forwarded message: >> > >> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath= -00.txt >> > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST >> > To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan Go= ssner" , "Carsten Bormann" >> > >> > >> > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >> > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the >> > IETF repository. >> > >> > Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >> > Revision: 00 >> > Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON >> > Document date: 2020-07-12 >> > Group: Individual Submission >> > Pages: 14 >> > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-di= spatch-jsonpath-00.txt >> > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispat= ch-jsonpath/ >> > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-js= onpath-00 >> > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-d= ispatch-jsonpath >> > >> > >> > Abstract: >> > insert abstract here >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of subm= ission >> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> > >> > The IETF Secretariat >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> json mailing list >> json@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mario Loffredo > To: Tim Bray , dispatch@ietf.org > Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:33:53 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > > > Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: > > During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented a = useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this work= . There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't be t= oo hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. > > +1 > > Mario > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) >> >> I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath= : >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html >> >> It says: >> >> > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated >> > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. >> > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to >> > find the right way to complete standardization of this specification. >> > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to >> > be covered. >> >> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical I= nternet-Draft deadline day botch.) >> >> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more= than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn = it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause for writ= ing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in W= 3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (= RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification would d= o good in defining how these two fit together. >> >> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. >> >> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator= ; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go= ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for qu= erying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model). >> >> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a shor= t-lived targeted WG. >> >> Please discuss! >> >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >> >> >> >> > Begin forwarded message: >> > >> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath= -00.txt >> > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST >> > To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan Go= ssner" , "Carsten Bormann" >> > >> > >> > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >> > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the >> > IETF repository. >> > >> > Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >> > Revision: 00 >> > Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON >> > Document date: 2020-07-12 >> > Group: Individual Submission >> > Pages: 14 >> > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-di= spatch-jsonpath-00.txt >> > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispat= ch-jsonpath/ >> > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-js= onpath-00 >> > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-d= ispatch-jsonpath >> > >> > >> > Abstract: >> > insert abstract here >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of subm= ission >> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> > >> > The IETF Secretariat >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- > Dr. Mario Loffredo > Systems and Technological Development Unit > Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) > National Research Council (CNR) > via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy > Phone: +39.0503153497 > Mobile: +39.3462122240 > Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json From nobody Tue Jul 14 02:15:29 2020 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 575083A0743 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:15:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.919 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 MhPXzEOPSQ2y for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02A03A0645 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B5Zc83SHTzyY5; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:15:20 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:15:19 +0200 Cc: JSON WG X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 616410919.056088-9914fc4552a3caa3c763ddc18031483a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <110C8A7F-D056-4941-B926-D50C1EDA1060@tzi.org> References: To: Daniel P X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 14 Jul 2020 09:15:28 -0000 Hi Daniel, that is great confirmation that now is a good time to bring these = efforts together. Do you know the people who are driving this? Are they aware of how they = could be contributing to the IETF? Could they be convinced to = contribute to an IETF effort? Who should talk to them about this? Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > On 2020-07-14, at 11:06, Daniel P wrote: >=20 > Just FYI, there is an alternative effort to propose a JSONPath > standardization based on a consensus of JSONPath implementations, see > https://cburgmer.github.io/json-path-comparison/ for the comparisons. > They're currently putting together a Proposal A, > = https://github.com/cburgmer/json-path-comparison/tree/master/proposals/Pro= posal_A, > including an ABNF grammar and test suite, and have invited comments. >=20 > Best regards, > Daniel >=20 > Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: >> During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and = lamented >> a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into >> this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose = it >> wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. >=20 > +1 >=20 > Mario >=20 >>=20 >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann > > wrote: >>=20 >> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org ) >>=20 >> I would like to initiate discussion for >> draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: >>=20 >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html >>=20 >> It says: >>=20 >>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated >>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. >>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to >>> find the right way to complete standardization of this >> specification. >>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what >> needs to >>> be covered. >>=20 >> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; >> typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) >>=20 >> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around >> for more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally >> go ahead and turn it into a proper Internet standards document. >> The immediate cause for writing this up now is that some IoT >> discovery work (some of which happens in W3C) can make good use of >> JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a >> more limited set of applications; the specification would do good >> in defining how these two fit together. >>=20 >> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. >>=20 >> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate >> operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which >> probably would then go ahead and write up another specification >> that makes JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go >> beyond the JSON generic data model). >>=20 >> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating >> a short-lived targeted WG. >>=20 >> Please discuss! >>=20 >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> Begin forwarded message: >>>=20 >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST >>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" > >, "Stefan Gossner" >> > >, "Carsten Bormann" >> > >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the >>> IETF repository. >>>=20 >>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>> Revision: 00 >>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON >>> Document date: 2020-07-12 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Pages: 14 >>> URL: >> = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.t= xt >>> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ >>> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 >>> Htmlized: >> = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Abstract: >>> insert abstract here >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time >> of submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at >> tools.ietf.org . >>>=20 >>> The IETF Secretariat >>>=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 > --=20 > Dr. Mario Loffredo > Systems and Technological Development Unit > Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) > National Research Council (CNR) > via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy > Phone: +39.0503153497 > Mobile: +39.3462122240 > Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo >=20 > [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Carsten Bormann > Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Tim Bray > Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Mario Loffredo >=20 >>=20 >> I would like to initiate discussion for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: >>=20 >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html >>=20 >> It says: >>=20 >>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated >>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. >>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to >>> find the right way to complete standardization of this = specification. >>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs = to >>> be covered. >>=20 >> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; = typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) >>=20 >> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for = more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead = and turn it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate = cause for writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of = which happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we = already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of = applications; the specification would do good in defining how these two = fit together. >>=20 >> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. >>=20 >> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate = operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably = would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes = JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON = generic data model). >>=20 >> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a = short-lived targeted WG. >>=20 >> Please discuss! >>=20 >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> Begin forwarded message: >>>=20 >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>> Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST >>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan = Gossner" , "Carsten Bormann" = >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the >>> IETF repository. >>>=20 >>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>> Revision: 00 >>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON >>> Document date: 2020-07-12 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Pages: 14 >>> URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.t= xt >>> Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ >>> Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 >>> Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Abstract: >>> insert abstract here >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>=20 >>> The IETF Secretariat >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Tim Bray >> To: dispatch@ietf.org >> Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG >> Bcc: >> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:31:49 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >> During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and = lamented a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles = into this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose = it wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. >>=20 >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann = wrote: >>>=20 >>> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) >>>=20 >>> I would like to initiate discussion for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: >>>=20 >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html >>>=20 >>> It says: >>>=20 >>>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated >>>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. >>>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to >>>> find the right way to complete standardization of this = specification. >>>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs = to >>>> be covered. >>>=20 >>> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; = typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) >>>=20 >>> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for = more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead = and turn it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate = cause for writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of = which happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we = already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of = applications; the specification would do good in defining how these two = fit together. >>>=20 >>> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. >>>=20 >>> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate = operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably = would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes = JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON = generic data model). >>>=20 >>> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a = short-lived targeted WG. >>>=20 >>> Please discuss! >>>=20 >>> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>=20 >>>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST >>>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan = Gossner" , "Carsten Bormann" = >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to = the >>>> IETF repository. >>>>=20 >>>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>>> Revision: 00 >>>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON >>>> Document date: 2020-07-12 >>>> Group: Individual Submission >>>> Pages: 14 >>>> URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.t= xt >>>> Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ >>>> Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 >>>> Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Abstract: >>>> insert abstract here >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at = tools.ietf.org. >>>>=20 >>>> The IETF Secretariat >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> json mailing list >>> json@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Mario Loffredo >> To: Tim Bray , dispatch@ietf.org >> Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG >> Bcc: >> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:33:53 +0200 >> Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>=20 >>=20 >> Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: >>=20 >> During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and = lamented a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles = into this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose = it wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. >>=20 >> +1 >>=20 >> Mario >>=20 >>=20 >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann = wrote: >>>=20 >>> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) >>>=20 >>> I would like to initiate discussion for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: >>>=20 >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html >>>=20 >>> It says: >>>=20 >>>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated >>>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. >>>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to >>>> find the right way to complete standardization of this = specification. >>>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs = to >>>> be covered. >>>=20 >>> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; = typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) >>>=20 >>> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for = more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead = and turn it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate = cause for writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of = which happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we = already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of = applications; the specification would do good in defining how these two = fit together. >>>=20 >>> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. >>>=20 >>> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate = operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably = would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes = JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON = generic data model). >>>=20 >>> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a = short-lived targeted WG. >>>=20 >>> Please discuss! >>>=20 >>> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>=20 >>>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST >>>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan = Gossner" , "Carsten Bormann" = >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >>>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to = the >>>> IETF repository. >>>>=20 >>>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>>> Revision: 00 >>>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON >>>> Document date: 2020-07-12 >>>> Group: Individual Submission >>>> Pages: 14 >>>> URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.t= xt >>>> Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ >>>> Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 >>>> Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Abstract: >>>> insert abstract here >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at = tools.ietf.org. >>>>=20 >>>> The IETF Secretariat >>>>=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 >> -- >> Dr. Mario Loffredo >> Systems and Technological Development Unit >> Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) >> National Research Council (CNR) >> via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy >> Phone: +39.0503153497 >> Mobile: +39.3462122240 >> Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo >>=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 From nobody Tue Jul 14 05:25:38 2020 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 626483A0B76 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:25:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.887 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brianrosen-net.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 yLMzlESjlcA3 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 21E7F3A0B75 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id e18so13987837ilr.7 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:25:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brianrosen-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=WgjgtHl/eLx4zF0CS7LWDxZwlRutT1zcU1sMJ25QQ2U=; b=1o+b3cwsFQPji2bHWdmDtkVToehwhMN7KxyKudWHUh1qswVFzYV8RkEXb3/6hx0wsg CNKfjRON+gFIglR5IaC9JRgfuxzKdPNDK1gPwoBvrW5AS0TynHLyrvdeyN+vBOczEnZp EUb6dy8d74ndBYsEwisVzRFduZ0Vm4dbEQAR2vcuaU/jEMUjjCMATIKwc6y5FIIeYuqX YFc7HKrma4KwQ0nvt+thps2T9sin5hXCOiO/1Onx66f2btmbxK+weInd89HBu7od252N lTufby4sm5P14KBpi9d+HtvSZpmHwi249sJ/WvaSw1Qb+Ezt4izIvz+xWCbyaMxloe7M 6t+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=WgjgtHl/eLx4zF0CS7LWDxZwlRutT1zcU1sMJ25QQ2U=; b=kN87f3ka0fiflOYgzoMOxWs/Z/PAgoHjusS6qddC7Hu/gyCR0rjuWBJf2NzT0OT+Dk 1V701gyzsZv1RjGeghVTf/iR6q5RWXL8s5O/gxrataeXkZjkV1ssy92WjlCGkUdz5hOT 9fhckT+F2rN2AfymvDz3NkfWObVAa5Y7qeUG8TQnCruWvebsSIuluPb9qV4hEDJaOdGG b8daE9kKJHWGUy0IGMIvUH6TpBIk50qzaWQBhqZ1csu1h36vjtZgNGKhgGt1/H603a7W guPshoKOPSsw7qZ8uf1eqeopWxu91r/H1HMA1q+YHWfnKrn9VqKzCFMqkBIxZoRFTQ7K CWCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533A7M6lEWge3Q8lJCm83a5Fk2E2QgL7tNGwVJKrtOwAUA4f7HOV JPRnrD0eN/Frp3Qn1ZRpAN8kqA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytzImwYzrtgVlfv2t55uA2xDv/tS68xjbYS5Oi8c7p5Yt5kcu5O0Rx2V2XtBdlnm70kP4wFA== X-Received: by 2002:a92:aad6:: with SMTP id p83mr4160833ill.65.1594729528286; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp-2871.lan (dynamic-acs-24-154-119-158.zoominternet.net. [24.154.119.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f18sm9068754ion.47.2020.07.14.05.25.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:25:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rosen Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9FCF87D4-63FA-423B-80C1-DF79640D5764" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 08:25:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <467d225e-6dcf-4e5f-1101-27e4c074c6af@iit.cnr.it> Cc: Tim Bray , dispatch@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG To: Mario Loffredo References: <159467093010.19477.7181341398452455173@ietfa.amsl.com> <77B617C1-2148-4AE6-8428-DAD43D01FBC5@tzi.org> <467d225e-6dcf-4e5f-1101-27e4c074c6af@iit.cnr.it> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] [dispatch] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 14 Jul 2020 12:25:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9FCF87D4-63FA-423B-80C1-DF79640D5764 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +1 And I note the discussion of an HTTP API working group, to which this = work would fit in. I=E2=80=99m currently working on a spec for emergency services that uses = jsonpath, and the lack of a referenceable spec was a big concern. =20 Brian > On Jul 14, 2020, at 3:33 AM, Mario Loffredo = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: >> During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and = lamented a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles = into this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose = it wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. =20 > +1 >=20 > Mario >=20 >>=20 >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann > wrote: >> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org ) >>=20 >> I would like to initiate discussion for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: >>=20 >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html = >>=20 >> It says: >>=20 >> > This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated >> > 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. >> > It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to >> > find the right way to complete standardization of this = specification. >> > In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs = to >> > be covered. >>=20 >> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; = typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) >>=20 >> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for = more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead = and turn it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate = cause for writing this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of = which happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we = already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of = applications; the specification would do good in defining how these two = fit together. >>=20 >> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. >>=20 >> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate = operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably = would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes = JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON = generic data model). >>=20 >> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a = short-lived targeted WG. >>=20 >> Please discuss! >>=20 >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> > Begin forwarded message: >> >=20 >> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >> > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >> > Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST >> > To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" >, "Stefan Gossner" = >, "Carsten Bormann" = > >> >=20 >> >=20 >> > A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt >> > has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to = the >> > IETF repository. >> >=20 >> > Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath >> > Revision: 00 >> > Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON >> > Document date: 2020-07-12 >> > Group: Individual Submission >> > Pages: 14 >> > URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.t= xt = >> > Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ = >> > Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 = >> > Htmlized: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath = >> >=20 >> >=20 >> > Abstract: >> > insert abstract here >> >=20 >> >=20 >> >=20 >> >=20 >> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org = . >> >=20 >> > The IETF Secretariat >> >=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 > Dr. Mario Loffredo > Systems and Technological Development Unit > Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) > National Research Council (CNR) > via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy > Phone: +39.0503153497 > Mobile: +39.3462122240 > Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo = ____________________________________= ___________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch --Apple-Mail=_9FCF87D4-63FA-423B-80C1-DF79640D5764 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 +1

And I = note the discussion of an HTTP API working group, to which this work = would fit in.

I=E2=80=99m currently working on a spec for emergency = services that uses jsonpath, and the lack of a referenceable spec was a = big concern.  

Brian

On Jul 14, 2020, at 3:33 AM, = Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> wrote:

=20 =20


Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto:
During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. 

+1

Mario


On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at = 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
(Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org)

I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.htm= l

It says:

> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated
> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it.
> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to
> find the right way to complete standardization of this specification.
> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to
> be covered.

(For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.)

This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and turn it into a proper Internet standards document.  The immediate cause for writing this = up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in W3C) can make good use of JSONPath.  Clearly, we already = have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification would do good in defining how these two fit together.

There is no active WG that immediately fits this work.

Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then go ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model).

Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a short-lived targeted WG.

Please discuss!

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten



> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST
> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" <stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de>, "Stefan Gossner" <stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de>, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:        =  draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath
> Revision:     00
> Title:              =   JSONPath -- XPath for JSON
> Document date:        2020-07-12
> Group:              =   Individual Submission
> Pages:              =   14
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-js= onpath-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpa= th/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00=
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-j= sonpath
>
>
> Abstract:
>   insert abstract here
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>

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

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m=
ailman/listinfo/json

--=20
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Systems and Technological Development Unit
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Mobile: +39.3462122240
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.=
loffredo
_______________________________________________
dispatch = mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

= --Apple-Mail=_9FCF87D4-63FA-423B-80C1-DF79640D5764-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 06:49:46 2020 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 632553A0400 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:49:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gw1o9McYGr9U for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (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 453913A0112 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id f7so21734752wrw.1 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:49:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n6Y/nPEX+bDTpSDiyZEYlEsgsKz3f9nLM6qUFCJrnwM=; b=Gc1QjAHK6bzEhdXbaRhJ+Q05T1pio2HSxS7/UtQkU9Ce6OmozEpZL6AaB/hYWkGYEn 7S2WaiWlI/vM8NOu1lBzzNqmzXJsCZErsIHYwpX/1kmkJE8mrBTMWS0R8zR7+0AkTgte UtHR/VRwBp0hYbDqslYxaT8WzMDMh/nLnN6uQpeSwmFElH6xxjKFgXEGPs/2+ukwXgD6 L7x8MEKUIPfO6N750FGQXYa2Rgod74JSAbJwD1fHbc3wml7zbj4SUC/KUsVxsePNfwsx aI9irRX07AHZ9lX3sDszO4Ba/DIfZyYY4DFiyHAdmCHWwnXaQGGBK6ElcbQSLA2i0jZu KzWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n6Y/nPEX+bDTpSDiyZEYlEsgsKz3f9nLM6qUFCJrnwM=; b=EBQjTBNlNyFKica9TUMWbDj2hYqKZVCQhqMoHsmSuRecBtP6QIC7p79qYnP5ZCbEGP wnw7SgdpcQAy9HvizDs4VjiPa+P6C6QqJK/gKHzITVx7Y1iyeZMURG5fqvuKFm9twfwc a9FuuchGDhcqz+ovL1AGcm4AFcN6iiNrSk5clzm4AU88RntcNS+UL9Bnn3zoIbtc+Y2t DtibYfkIPpGhWr98fhuYxJHrUAPtpQceQLTd20SHNV2KvLMsVpCVNNmb/70X8pHHdbWl wA1aYhMHJCpKBI2FM58G1hMfIWC/3K2YIYKnRo0xpYE4SL3F3QS0wSGw3aublAuqeIR7 Debg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531mpOH27BrEXhOpswnbCnvxuSB8Kk6D2fdAoGi7uYqu/tUj65Uk SwPVnU8HyzKmnpOjNRkOhXsUDefWs689n4ZiLZp/XQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsbLcnBMvLrV+24hQkQDvgmCJYnc55DZ2m5hfIVP4Iu1VMYmorcK2I3eUYmSMUbtaxp189g9dIA+KRJgLIaxk= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4845:: with SMTP id n5mr5548813wrs.353.1594734570197; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <110C8A7F-D056-4941-B926-D50C1EDA1060@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel P Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:49:18 -0400 Message-ID: To: JSON WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [Json] Fwd: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 14 Jul 2020 13:49:44 -0000 Hi Carsten, I learned about this project when I was contacted by Christoph Burgmer for help with integrating my C++ implementation into their workflow, most languages they covered had standard package managers, but C++ not. My understanding is that their primary goal is to propose a specification of JSONPath known as "Proposal A" that is consistent with the consensus of implementations, and to solicit as much feedback as possible. There's more information about that here: https://github.com/cburgmer/json-path-comparison/blob/master/FAQ.md. I'm not sure what they intend to do with their "Proposal A" once it's completed. It looks pretty far advanced to me, and my quick take is that some implementations are aligning themselves on the consensus, thus expanding it. Perhaps it could be worked into an IETF recommendation, but I can't speak for that. I would suggest contacting Christoph Burgmer if you thought it useful to follow up along that line. Best regards, Daniel On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:15 AM Carsten Bormann wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > that is great confirmation that now is a good time to bring these efforts= together. > Do you know the people who are driving this? Are they aware of how they = could be contributing to the IETF? Could they be convinced to contribute t= o an IETF effort? Who should talk to them about this? > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > On 2020-07-14, at 11:06, Daniel P wrote: > > > > Just FYI, there is an alternative effort to propose a JSONPath > > standardization based on a consensus of JSONPath implementations, see > > https://cburgmer.github.io/json-path-comparison/ for the comparisons. > > They're currently putting together a Proposal A, > > https://github.com/cburgmer/json-path-comparison/tree/master/proposals/= Proposal_A, > > including an ABNF grammar and test suite, and have invited comments. > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: > >> During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented > >> a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into > >> this work. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it > >> wouldn't be too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. > > > > +1 > > > > Mario > > > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann >> > wrote: > >> > >> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org ) > >> > >> I would like to initiate discussion for > >> draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath: > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > >> > >> It says: > >> > >>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > >>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > >>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > >>> find the right way to complete standardization of this > >> specification. > >>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what > >> needs to > >>> be covered. > >> > >> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; > >> typical Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) > >> > >> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around > >> for more than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally > >> go ahead and turn it into a proper Internet standards document. > >> The immediate cause for writing this up now is that some IoT > >> discovery work (some of which happens in W3C) can make good use of > >> JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer (RFC 6901) for a > >> more limited set of applications; the specification would do good > >> in defining how these two fit together. > >> > >> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > >> > >> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate > >> operator; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which > >> probably would then go ahead and write up another specification > >> that makes JSONPath useful for querying CBOR instances that go > >> beyond the JSON generic data model). > >> > >> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating > >> a short-lived targeted WG. > >> > >> Please discuss! > >> > >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > >> > >> > >> > >>> Begin forwarded message: > >>> > >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > >>> Subject: New Version Notification for > >> draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > >>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" >> >, "Stefan Gossner" > >> >> >, "Carsten Bormann" > >> > > >>> > >>> > >>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > >>> IETF repository. > >>> > >>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > >>> Revision: 00 > >>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > >>> Document date: 2020-07-12 > >>> Group: Individual Submission > >>> Pages: 14 > >>> URL: > >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpa= th-00.txt > >>> Status: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath/ > >>> Htmlized: > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00 > >>> Htmlized: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonp= ath > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> insert abstract here > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time > >> of submission > >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at > >> tools.ietf.org . > >>> > >>> The IETF Secretariat > >>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > -- > > Dr. Mario Loffredo > > Systems and Technological Development Unit > > Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) > > National Research Council (CNR) > > via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy > > Phone: +39.0503153497 > > Mobile: +39.3462122240 > > Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo > > > > [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Carsten Bormann > > Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Tim Bray > > Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt Mario Loffredo > > > >> > >> I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpa= th: > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > >> > >> It says: > >> > >>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > >>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > >>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > >>> find the right way to complete standardization of this specification. > >>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs to > >>> be covered. > >> > >> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typical= Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) > >> > >> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for mo= re than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and tur= n it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause for wr= iting this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens in= W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointer= (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification would= do good in defining how these two fit together. > >> > >> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > >> > >> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate operat= or; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then = go ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for = querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model). > >> > >> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a sh= ort-lived targeted WG. > >> > >> Please discuss! > >> > >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > >> > >> > >> > >>> Begin forwarded message: > >>> > >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > >>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpat= h-00.txt > >>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > >>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan G= ossner" , "Carsten Bormann" > >>> > >>> > >>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > >>> IETF repository. > >>> > >>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > >>> Revision: 00 > >>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > >>> Document date: 2020-07-12 > >>> Group: Individual Submission > >>> Pages: 14 > >>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-d= ispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-dispa= tch-jsonpath/ > >>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-j= sonpath-00 > >>> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner-= dispatch-jsonpath > >>> > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> insert abstract here > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of sub= mission > >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >>> > >>> The IETF Secretariat > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Tim Bray > >> To: dispatch@ietf.org > >> Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:31:49 -0700 > >> Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >> During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented= a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this w= ork. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't b= e too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > >>> > >>> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) > >>> > >>> I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonp= ath: > >>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > >>> > >>> It says: > >>> > >>>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > >>>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > >>>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > >>>> find the right way to complete standardization of this specification= . > >>>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs t= o > >>>> be covered. > >>> > >>> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typica= l Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) > >>> > >>> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for m= ore than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and tu= rn it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause for w= riting this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens i= n W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointe= r (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification woul= d do good in defining how these two fit together. > >>> > >>> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > >>> > >>> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate opera= tor; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then= go ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for= querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model). > >>> > >>> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a s= hort-lived targeted WG. > >>> > >>> Please discuss! > >>> > >>> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>> > >>>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpa= th-00.txt > >>>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > >>>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan = Gossner" , "Carsten Bormann" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > >>>> IETF repository. > >>>> > >>>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > >>>> Revision: 00 > >>>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > >>>> Document date: 2020-07-12 > >>>> Group: Individual Submission > >>>> Pages: 14 > >>>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-= dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-disp= atch-jsonpath/ > >>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-= jsonpath-00 > >>>> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner= -dispatch-jsonpath > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Abstract: > >>>> insert abstract here > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of su= bmission > >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >>>> > >>>> The IETF Secretariat > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> json mailing list > >>> json@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Mario Loffredo > >> To: Tim Bray , dispatch@ietf.org > >> Cc: cbor@ietf.org, JSON WG > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:33:53 +0200 > >> Subject: Re: [Json] draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >> > >> > >> Il 14/07/2020 07:31, Tim Bray ha scritto: > >> > >> During my time at AWS I worked very heavily with JSONPath and lamented= a useful referenceable spec. I would be happy to invest cycles into this w= ork. There currently isn't a JSON working group but I suppose it wouldn't b= e too hard to reconstitute it for this purpose. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Mario > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:14 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > >>> > >>> (Reply-To set to dispatch@ietf.org) > >>> > >>> I would like to initiate discussion for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonp= ath: > >>> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.html > >>> > >>> It says: > >>> > >>>> This document picks up the popular JSONPath specification dated > >>>> 2007-02-21 and provides a more normative definition for it. > >>>> It is intended as a submission to the IETF DISPATCH WG, in order to > >>>> find the right way to complete standardization of this specification= . > >>>> In its current state, it is a strawman document showing what needs t= o > >>>> be covered. > >>> > >>> (For some reason the abstract landed in the Contributing note; typica= l Internet-Draft deadline day botch.) > >>> > >>> This is a widely implemented specification that has been around for m= ore than a decade; now may be a good opportunity to finally go ahead and tu= rn it into a proper Internet standards document. The immediate cause for w= riting this up now is that some IoT discovery work (some of which happens i= n W3C) can make good use of JSONPath. Clearly, we already have JSON Pointe= r (RFC 6901) for a more limited set of applications; the specification woul= d do good in defining how these two fit together. > >>> > >>> There is no active WG that immediately fits this work. > >>> > >>> Eventually CDDL may pick JSONPath up in the form of a predicate opera= tor; this might make the CBOR WG the right group (which probably would then= go ahead and write up another specification that makes JSONPath useful for= querying CBOR instances that go beyond the JSON generic data model). > >>> > >>> Reopening the JSON WG may be another approach, as may be creating a s= hort-lived targeted WG. > >>> > >>> Please discuss! > >>> > >>> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>> > >>>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpa= th-00.txt > >>>> Date: 2020-07-13 at 22:08:50 CEST > >>>> To: "Stefan G=C3=B6ssner" , "Stefan = Gossner" , "Carsten Bormann" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>>> has been successfully submitted by Carsten Bormann and posted to the > >>>> IETF repository. > >>>> > >>>> Name: draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath > >>>> Revision: 00 > >>>> Title: JSONPath -- XPath for JSON > >>>> Document date: 2020-07-12 > >>>> Group: Individual Submission > >>>> Pages: 14 > >>>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-goessner-= dispatch-jsonpath-00.txt > >>>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-goessner-disp= atch-jsonpath/ > >>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-goessner-dispatch-= jsonpath-00 > >>>> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-goessner= -dispatch-jsonpath > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Abstract: > >>>> insert abstract here > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of su= bmission > >>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >>>> > >>>> The IETF Secretariat > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > >> -- > >> Dr. Mario Loffredo > >> Systems and Technological Development Unit > >> Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) > >> National Research Council (CNR) > >> via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy > >> Phone: +39.0503153497 > >> Mobile: +39.3462122240 > >> Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 Tue Jul 28 07:23:37 2020 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 E57D73A0CB9 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.63 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.267, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 1uCC7nNna9ly for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 E84A23A0CB8 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.32.60.113] (76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 06SEMJrn008485 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:22:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70] claimed to be [10.32.60.113] From: "Paul Hoffman" To: "JSON WG" Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:23:30 -0700 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671) Message-ID: References: <159593786213.26871.10475259980930595998@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [Json] Fwd: New Non-WG Mailing List: jsonpath X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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, 28 Jul 2020 14:23:35 -0000 Forwarded message: > From: IETF Secretariat > To: IETF Announcement List > Cc: cabo@tzi.org, jsonpath@ietf.org > Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: jsonpath > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:04:22 -0700 > > A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. > > List address: jsonpath@ietf.org > Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jsonpath/ > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath > > Purpose: > For matching and selecting parts of a data item tree, XML has XPath. > In 2007, Stefan Goessner proposed JSONPath as an analogue for JSON. > This format has seen wide use, with dozens of implementations, but has > not yet been formally standardized. The conditions for standardizing > now seem to align. This mailing list is intended for discussing the > creation of an IETF activity for this (likely in the form of a WG), > initially by agreeing a proposed charter for this WG. This charter > proposal will then receive further discussion in the DISPATCH WG. > Concurrently, discussions about technical issues in JSONPath > standardization are also welcome. > > This list belongs to IETF area: ART > > For additional information, please contact the list administrators.