Subject: [Json] Kicking Off JSONbis

From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:53:39 +0000

Hello all,

Welcome to the JSONbis working group!

The WG charter is at < https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonbis/charter/ >.

In a nutshell, the goal of this effort is to produce a bis to 7159 that:

* promotes JSON to IETF Internet Standard
* references ECMA-404 and is a reference for ECMA-404

Tim Bray has agreed to edit 7159bis.

As a start, I propose we start with rfc7159 and:

1) Apply verified errata from < https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159 >
2) Change the reference to ECMA-404 from informative to normative

-  JSONbis Chair

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:10:36 +0200

> 2) Change the reference to ECMA-404 from informative to normative

Maybe you can say a bit more about this cross-referencing business.

Right now, I don't need to follow railroad tracks to implement JSON.
Will the normative reference to ECMA-404 change that?
How will the differences in coverage be resolved?

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:41:00 +0000

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 16:10, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

The IETF-to-Ecma Liaison Manager[*] will be helping to coordinate with Ecma TC39 editors.  It may be some text talking about the racetracks, or it may be something more.  The details do need to be worked out.

/me doffs hat

ECMA-404 is concerned about the model, and 7159bis can be focused on what that means on the wire.  I can see pointing slightly more into ECMA-404 on syntax, and the dragons that the original effort documented remaining in 7159bis.  Personally, I don't see the ABNF being removed from 7159bis, since that definitely impacts what's on the wire.

--
- m&m

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

[*] Who is also the JSONbis WG Chair

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:22:03 -0700

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <[email-masked]>
wrote:
​​

> ​​
​​
I note that RFC7159 already has an informative reference to ECMA-404. I
take it that the proposal is to have a normative reference?  Query: is the
reference on normative vs informative
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html
authoritative?

Quoting from that document: “Normative references specify documents that
must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or
whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work.”

I’d like to hear some reasoning on how ECMA-404 meets either of those
criteria.

[Yes, I agreed to edit.  While I’m highly unconvinced on the merits of
7159bis approach, if the WG chooses to move ahead with this plan, I’ll put
the angle brackets in the right places.]

-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:28:20 +0200

Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
> ECMA-404 is concerned about the model

That is an interesting assessment.
If you are talking about the data model, my impression was that ECMA-404
(unsuccessfully) attempted to rid itself of considerations about the
data model.  But I'm not an expert on ECMA-404 exegesis.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:44:01 -0700

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
> ​​
>
>
>> ​​

To me, it seems like a political or diplomatic gesture that helps the
Internet to move forward.

Framing it in technical or standards-wonk terms seems counterproductive. I
don't think there are substantive issues in those areas that would be
resolved by objecting to the plan in the charter.

- Rob

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:00:49 +0200

On 2015-09-30 08:44, Rob Sayre wrote:
 > ...

Right.

 > Framing it in technical or standards-wonk terms seems counterproductive.
 > I don't think there are substantive issues in those areas that would be
 > ...

But then the charter doesn't mention the suggested change explicitly.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:27:46 -0700

On 09/29/2015 02:53 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote:
> The WG charter is at < https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonbis/charter/
> >.
> 
> * promotes JSON to IETF Internet Standard * references ECMA-404 and is a
> reference for ECMA-404
> 
> 1) Apply verified errata from <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7159 > 2) Change the
> reference to ECMA-404 from informative to normative
> 
> 
> -  JSONbis Chair

I must admit that I am puzzled as to how ECMA-404 can be a normative
reference for any document that is a minor change from rfc7159.  What in
ECMA-404 is needed to understand or implement what is in rfc7159?

As has been stated, rfc7159 already references ECMA-404.  A conservative way
to make a closer connection from rfc7159 to ECMA-404 would be to state that
ECMA-404 has an alternative description of JSON that is extremely close to
the definition in rfc7159.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications