Subject: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:42:38 -0700

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

        Title           : The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format
        Author          : Tim Bray
	Filename        : draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2016-06-15

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-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-02

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: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:46:27 -0700

Two questions for the WG:

1. In section 1.2, first sentence, should “describes” be “described”?

2. 2nd last para of 1.2 has the word “should” in lower case - using 2119
words in lower case is apt to draw objections.  But can we say SHOULD when
we're talking about another organization?

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:42 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

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

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:47:05 -0700

One question for the chairs:

What’s the quid pro quo?  What change will ECMA be making as part of this
process?

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:26:28 +0100

Hi Tim,

> On 16 Jun 2016, at 04:46, Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 2. 2nd last para of 1.2 has the word “should” in lower case - using 2119 words in lower case is apt to draw objections.  But can we say SHOULD when we're talking about another organization?

I don't think SHOULD will work here, so just keep it lowercased.
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)

---

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:16:48 +0000

>1. In section 1.2, first sentence, should “describes” be “described”?

“described”, in my opinion.

Change 4627 to 7159?

>2. 2nd last para of 1.2 has the word “should” in lower case - using 2119 words in lower case is apt to draw objections.  But can we say SHOULD when we're talking about another organization?

Change “should” to “will”?

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:26:00 -0400

> What’s the quid pro quo?  What change will ECMA be making as part of this

As the former AD who was part of sorting this out with ECMA:
They are supposed to do the same, putting something in their docs that
points to ours and says something similar about having the two specs
remain converged.

Barry

---

From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:00:52 +0000

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 14:26, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Thanks Barry.  Yes, this is what has been agreed to by Ecma TC39.

--
- m&m

Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:48:12 +0900

> Thanks Barry.  Yes, this is what has been agreed to by Ecma TC39.

Not specific for this, but just a general comment based on experience 
from collaboration between different standardization organizations:
Don't expect this to happen overnight. Each organization works at their 
own cycles and pace.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:20:58 +0000

It should help that we’ve got a draft that says the right thing now.  Matt, with your TC39 liaison hat on, maybe you can forward it to them and see what their schedule is looking like?  Ideally, we’d be able to publish both documents in roughly the same timeframe.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand