Subject: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:54:58 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the JavaScript Object Notation Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : The JSON Data Interchange Format
	Author(s)       : Tim Bray
	Filename        : draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2013-12-19

Abstract:
   JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based,
   language-independent data interchange format.  It was derived from
   the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard.  JSON defines a small
   set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured
   data.

   This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of
   JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based
   interoperability guidance.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10

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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:56:30 -0800

Real HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.html

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:54 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:05:27 -0500

> Real HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.html

The (admittedly non-normative) claim that "all texts which were legal
JSON remain so" has been removed.  Is it no longer true?  If not,
I think it should return.

Otherwise +1 to all changes.

-- 
John Cowan <[email-masked]>             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Fundamental thinking is ha-ard.  Let's go ideology-shopping.
                        --Philosopher Barbie

---

From: Stefan Drees <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:50:45 +0100

> Real HTML at https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.html

all changes but one look good to me. Like John Cowan I *really* miss the 
revision-9 upfront "all texts which were legal JSON remain so, and none 
which were not JSON become JSON." in all it's 
non-normative-but-nicely-explicit glory.
Could we get that one back in? I think this would be good.

All the best,
Stefan.

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:54:20 -0800

Well... unfortunately a bunch were formerly not JSON now are, see the last
3 examples in section 13.  Given that, the statement that no legal JSON
became illegal feels superfluous.  Anyhow, read what Paul said; now that
the IESG has signed off we really can’t touch this any more unless
something is broken in an actively harmful way.

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Stefan Drees <[email-masked]> wrote:

> which were not JSON become JSON." in all it's non-normative-but-nicely-explicit
> glory.

---

From: Stefan Drees <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:54:06 +0100

On 2013-12-20 18:54 +01:00, Tim Bray wrote:
> Well... unfortunately a bunch were formerly not JSON now are, see the
> last 3 examples in section 13.  Given that, the statement that no legal
> JSON became illegal feels superfluous.  Anyhow, read what Paul said; now
> that the IESG has signed off we really can’t touch this any more unless

I am a bit astonished, that any "statement that no legal JSON became 
illegal" might appear superfluous. I thought that would be the core of 
downward compatibility, but even an old dog can learn new tricks ;-)

At least Section 2. JSON Grammar somehow hints at it: "Note that certain 
previous specifications of JSON constrained a JSON text to be an object 
or an array. Implementations which generate only objects or arrays where 
a JSON text is called for will be interoperable in the sense that all 
implementations will accept these as conforming JSON texts."

All the best,
Stefan.
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Stefan Drees <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>         Real HTML at
>         https://www.tbray.org/tmp/__draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.__html
>         <https://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.html>
>
>
>     all changes but one look good to me. Like John Cowan I *really* miss
>     the revision-9 upfront "all texts which were legal JSON remain so,
>     and none which were not JSON become JSON." in all it's
>     non-normative-but-nicely-__explicit glory.

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:43:10 +0900

It's very clear to me that in the last revision, removing the "none 
which were not JSON become JSON" was the goal, and the removal of "all 
texts which were legal JSON remain so" was just an unintended side 
effect and clerical error.

While we shouldn't continue to willy-nilly tweak the spec after IESG 
approval, I have seen many examples where fixes like this were done e.g. 
by an AD note to the RFC editor, and I think in the case at hand, that 
would be highly appropriate.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Stefan Drees <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:29:41 +0100

> would be highly appropriate.

+1 from my side for following this suggested path to explicitely restate 
the downward compatibility in a prominent place.

All the best,
Stefan.