Subject: [Json] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-json-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 03:46:38 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-json-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if we know how the mechanics of joint publication with 
ECMA will work out. I think everyone regretted doing that with W3C 
for xmldsig even though there was good will on all sides afaik, and 
that it'd be better if the WG just published the RFC having checked 
with ECMA at WGLC  and IETF LC. Note - I don't object to the 
idea of joint publication, I'm just wary that it might turn into a 
swamp of conflicting rules about copyright, IPR and when stuff 
happens in each process that could add significant delay and 
uncertainty and might give any folks in the rough far too much 
opportunity for fun. 

A possibly stupid idea if you do want to stick with joint publication: 
Add something to the milestones which causes a joint publication 
of <I don't care what> early on to debug the joint publication thing. 
Feel free to entirely ignore that though.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:20:23 +0200

Hi Stephen,

I would like to address some of the questions you have below:

> uncertainty and might give any folks in the rough far too much 

This was discussed with the ECMA leadership.  The agreement is for work
to proceed in the JSON working group, for that work to be presented to
ECMA for its approval, and then once we've received word, then both
organizations may publish using their separate boiler plate, with
permission of the authors.  This approach has been vetted by the Trust.

It is possible that ECMA would fail to act to approve.  In this case, we
would want to make a decision.  Did they fail to act because there was a
problem, or did it just not hit the radar?  In the former case,
something would have gone wrong earlier.  In order to avoid that, I
advise and I think Barry agrees, that the chairs seek the broadest
possible consensus, and that when bumps in the road are hit, we can
discuss them.

> Feel free to entirely ignore that though.
As to this suggestion, I think it's a good one, if we can get ECMA to agree.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:23:50 +0200

One edit:

On 5/15/13 7:20 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> ECMA for its approval,

And to the IESG for its separate approval, but that the doc would be
held for publication pending ECMA approval...

>  and then once we've received word, then both
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>