Subject: [dispatch] Heads up - JSON Data Definition Format (JDDF)

From: "RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:18:28 -0700

Hi Dispatch,

draft-ucarion-json-type-definition has been presented to the Independent
Submissions Editor for publication as an RFC.

During review it was suggested to me that the topic might be of sufficient
interest that a WG could be formed, but there doesn't seem to be quite
that level of enthusiasm.

In discussing this with the ADs, they suggested I should flag this to you.
I'd certainly be interested in hearing any comments, and if Dispatch
wanted to take this on that would be worth knowing.

Thanks,
Adrian
-- 
Adrian Farrel (ISE),
[email-masked]

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:56:39 -0500

Hi Everyone,

Does anyone have comments for Adrien?

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Apr 10, 2020, at 5:18 PM, RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dispatch,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 17:07:07 +1000

Well, it saw a fairly large amount of discussion on the json@ list -- albeit under various different names.

So I'm a bit surprised it was characterised as not enough enthusiasm in the community; has that been verified?

At the least, a note to json@ would seem reasonable.

Cheers,

> On 11 Apr 2020, at 8:18 am, RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dispatch,
> 

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

---

From: "RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 02:28:50 -0700

Thanks Mark,

Yes, the document got a fair amount of discussion on the json list back in
the day. That, the author acknowledges, did a lot to shape the feature set
in the current version of the draft.

However, the json working group was closed in 2015. While the mailing list
is still active, and this draft has been discussed on that list (even
quite recently), I would venture that it is not where one goes in the IETF
to determine whether the IETF has consensus to pick up a piece of work.

Since this work could belong in the ART Area, Dispatch seems like the
right place to catch the attention of the Area's participants, WG chairs,
and ADs. This is that attempt to verify whether there is enthusiasm to
work on this within the IETF.

However, sending email is cheap, so I will drop a note to the json list as
well.

And, to be clear, I would be very happy if the IETF wanted to pick this up
in one way or another (new WG, draft run through Dispatch, AD sponsored,
or anything else)

Best,
Adrian

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> So I'm a bit surprised it was characterised as not enough enthusiasm
> in the community; has that been verified?
>
>> draft-ucarion-json-type-definition has been presented to the
>> Independent Submissions Editor for publication as an RFC.
>>
>> During review it was suggested to me that the topic might be of
>> sufficient interest that a WG could be formed, but there doesn't
>> seem to be quite that level of enthusiasm.
>>

-- 
Adrian Farrel (ISE),
[email-masked]