Subject: [Json] Update to proposed charter to cover listing changes

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:03:25 -0400

Greetings again. I have made the following change in the proposed charter (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON):

Any changes that break compatibility with existing
implementations will need to have very strong justification and broad
support, and will have to be documented in the new RFC.

==>

It is acknowledged that there are differences between RFC 4627 and the
ECMAScript specification in the rules for parsing JSON. Any changes that
break compatibility with existing implementations of either RFC 4627 or
the ECMAScript specification will need to have very strong justification
and broad support. All differences between RFC 4627 or the current
ECMAScript specification will be documented in the new RFC. This
documentation will include both the WG consensus for the rationale of the
changes and the expected impact of the changes.

Does anyone have a problem with this change?

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:40:52 +0000

That tracks with what I remember from the WG meeting.

On 3/14/13 12:03 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Greetings again. I have made the following change in the proposed charter
>(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/JSON):
>
>_______________________________________________
>json mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:41:25 +0000

Sorry, I mis-spoke: "BoF", not "WG Meeting".

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:13:51 +0000

> Does anyone have a problem with this change?

Looks accurate to me.

- m&m

Matt Miller < [email-masked] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:05:58 -0500

Hi Paul,

> Does anyone have a problem with this change?

This mentions "current ECMAScript specification", yet there was also talk 
about the "in-progress" v6 ECMAScript spec. Do we have a timeline for when 
v6 work will be complete? It seems like we would want to base or diffs on 
that if it is available in a timely fashion.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:43:21 -0700

On Mar 15, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> --On March 14, 2013 12:03:25 PM -0400 Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This mentions "current ECMAScript specification", yet there was also talk about the "in-progress" v6 ECMAScript spec. Do we have a timeline for when v6 work will be complete? It seems like we would want to base or diffs on that if it is available in a timely fashion.

Yes, I would assume that we would want to have 4627bis detail diffs from v6, even if we have to wait "a reasonable amount of time" for it. If it looks like v6 is going to take more time than that, the WG can decide to make the diffs against v5.1.

--Paul Hoffman