Subject: Re: [Json] Second WG Last Call for json-text-sequence

From: "Manger, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:06:26 +1000

The RS-prefix proposal is not useful.
I have seen no evidence that JSON logs would use it.

--
James Manger

Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:

Greetings again. The first WG Last Call ended up with no consensus about whether the document was useful as it stood. Nico has made a few rounds of changes, and so I'd like to ask folks to read it again, fresh.

Please respond on the list whether the technical proposal in the new document could be useful in meeting the use cases and scenarios described in the document. Note that this is *not* a request for comments about whether or not you liked the old proposal better; it is a request about the current document.

The current document:

URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-06.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-text-sequence/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-06
Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-06

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