Subject: [Json] I-JSON-06 draft notes

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 23:17:39 -0800

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Matthew Miller <[email-masked]
> wrote:

> ​​
> Yes, go ahead and publish an update when you can.
>

​Omitting discussion of repairs to typo and thinkos, for which good catches
thanks to all.
​

​Taking notes as I work through
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-i-json/ballot/ and
following email threads

- inserting Unicode sect. 2.4 reference for Noncharacter & Surrogate. I can
never figure out how to make <xref mention a section nicely but I bet the
RFC Ed can.

- Barry, but nobody else I think, wanted 2119 language removed from
​section 4.  Some of those uses are meta- as in “here’s how you’d use 2119
language to specify I-JSON”; there remain three:

4.1 “Protocol designers SHOULD NOT use top-level JSON texts which are
neither objects nor arrays”
4.3 two SHOULDs in recommendations to stick to 8601/3339 for dates
4.4 “When it is required that an I-JSON protocol element contain arbitrary
binary data, it is RECOMMENDED that this data be encoded in a string value
in base64url...”

I’m pretty uncomfortable removing any of these; they had strong WG
consensus backing and are things that the IETF should be comfortable
saying.  Does the IESG or our AD want to insist?

- I don’t think the draft needs to further define “conformance”

- Added language along the lines suggested by Tero/Kathleen about I-JSON
perhaps offering security advantages, without sounding BCP-ish

- Per Stephen, recommended that TZ be included not defaulted in dates, and
that trailing 00 seconds not be omitted

- Per Ted, nuked the unnecessary “In particular” about integers.

- Added a note about the irritating background to the 64-bit int mention.

Absent big arguments, will publish this in a day or so.

​​

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:43:31 +0100

> section 4.  Some of those uses are meta- as in "here's how you'd use 2119
> language to specify I-JSON"; there remain three:
>

Barry, but nobody else, only mildly wanted that, and he is happy with the
decision that WG consensus is to leave it in.  Thanks for considering it
again.

Barry, but nobody else

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:18:21 +0100

> binary data, it is RECOMMENDED that this data be encoded in a string value

Is it still I-JSON if another encoding is used for binary data, provided
valid reasons for the choice exist? Or are some encodings incompatible
with I-JSON?

Thanks, Lada

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

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:26:56 -0500

> valid reasons for the choice exist? Or are some encodings incompatible

Of course.  You can't look at a string "chat" and tell if it's encoded
binary or a protocol element or English text or French text.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
If a traveler were informed that such a man [as Lord John Russell] was
leader of the House of Commons, he may well begin to comprehend how the
Egyptians worshiped an insect.  --Benjamin Disraeli