From nobody Fri Aug 7 15:25:24 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E24A3A0CEE; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:25:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vzaIXFi9foNu; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0BB63A0BEA; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0462389CD; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id z4u0ESEkqyXl; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAB0389CA; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5BC15F; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:25:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Carsten Bormann , asdf@ietf.org, json@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5C210025-34B4-45BC-9A1D-66D9E92B339A@tzi.org> References: <5C210025-34B4-45BC-9A1D-66D9E92B339A@tzi.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] [Asdf] Kicking off ASDF charter discussion X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 22:25:19 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain {didn't open issues for this} } The ASDF WG will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL } specification. It will also engage the still active mailing list of the } dormant JSON WG. Recent proposals to form an IRTF formal description } techniques (FDT) Research Group may lead to another collaboration } partner. The Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) and its WISHI program } can be instrumental in engaging researchers and other SDOs in this space, } or instance W3C WoT, which is working on Thing Description Templates and } related specifications. I can't really agree or disagree with any of this :-) Can we split this up a bit? 1> The ASDF WG will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL 1> specification. While we are using CDDL to define the structure, I'm unclear what the back and forth that ASDF will have with CBOR here. Are there pieces in CDDL that are missing that this model will motivate adding to CDDL? 2> It will also engage the still active mailing list of the 2> dormant JSON WG. Is this about json-path, and/or json-schema? 3> Recent proposals to form an IRTF formal description 3> techniques (FDT) Research Group may lead to another collaboration 3> partner. Where are these proposals occuring, and at one point will they conclude, and is the timing of this important, critical, or optional to the process? 4> The Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) and its WISHI program 4> can be instrumental in engaging researchers and other SDOs in this space, 4> or instance W3C WoT, which is working on Thing Description Templates and 4> related specifications. This part seems rather aspirational. All sorts of communications are important and beneficial, but is there some kind of implied liason activity, or some kind of cross-WG/RG last-call that is implied? I don't see any effect from just deleting this paragraph from the charter :-) -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl8t1MoACgkQgItw+93Q 3WWzhgf/T+MLTAQBh7OF8KhXDL2pKt7LXpzzhGgZi1Dak0MuOP3BPkWX+38f9nPi Ye9dxu8f1fvFx7CTIU7AGbS/RBctN4BMDvuu9YWAOONmbkEKhUbGxg1jlw3Oonlt 77UFJQyQf8HXhp0H2UHoxMMzWGUJHhFjxGHgiBluCDtl1DdGn51Cbcf+6PCIT9ir b0lb1Q34rtpnJhw7IxpCnyRhp7tg2Lsqd0miP++LeJCwZejmOWCzcp0kBFwUncm4 3HXI/YJ9QsLi75/8TQCWe9nzfMlMG8eFJ2a3irRELaklKg7W3fPnIizZgOZw5P3Q uQ1LqYjUEoJqNFoqhNDzClHpS4IY3g== =apT9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From nobody Sat Aug 8 00:19:00 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100EF3A0B2F; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:18:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bnbB_ErrnQ_P; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C9CC3A0AE3; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.101] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BNtrD0Yx6z100r; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:18:52 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <3271.1596839115@localhost> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:18:51 +0200 Cc: asdf@ietf.org, json@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618563931.597766-d8682c5d4ab2b95665a69af48000a86b Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <014EFFF5-0E83-48BC-9FCF-13831A9A9A6C@tzi.org> References: <5C210025-34B4-45BC-9A1D-66D9E92B339A@tzi.org> <3271.1596839115@localhost> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] [Asdf] Kicking off ASDF charter discussion X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 07:18:58 -0000 On 2020-08-08, at 00:25, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 > I don't see any effect from just deleting this paragraph from the = charter :-) I completely agree. However, relationship to other groups usually comes up in charter = discussion, and this paragraph was intended to provide a landscape. = These links may be obvious to us, but maybe not to others joining the = work. But I would expect the WG to act on this landscape independent of = whether it is exposed in the charter or not. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sat Aug 8 00:25:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A343A0B87; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:25:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oO1Jh_LlZ9bV; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 778D63A0B48; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.101] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BNtzd3RwBzys0; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:25:17 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <3271.1596839115@localhost> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:25:15 +0200 Cc: asdf@ietf.org, json@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618564315.874993-60803e3743c83c46bea5704634d6dace Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2A11875E-43EA-4227-A6E7-A7F5A09831EC@tzi.org> References: <5C210025-34B4-45BC-9A1D-66D9E92B339A@tzi.org> <3271.1596839115@localhost> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] [Asdf] Kicking off ASDF charter discussion X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 07:25:23 -0000 On to the details: > On 2020-08-08, at 00:25, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 > 1> The ASDF WG will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL > 1> specification. >=20 > While we are using CDDL to define the structure, I'm unclear what the = back > and forth that ASDF will have with CBOR here. Are there pieces in = CDDL that > are missing that this model will motivate adding to CDDL? That has already happened (the .feature feature). I could imagine the SDF work will continue to be a fertile ground for = further improving the usability of CDDL in specs of this kind. > 2> It will also engage the still active mailing list of the > 2> dormant JSON WG. >=20 > Is this about json-path, and/or json-schema? Probably more about json data definition (which includes the = json-schema.org proposals that have been inspiring the SDF data = definition components). > 3> Recent proposals to form an IRTF formal description > 3> techniques (FDT) Research Group may lead to another collaboration > 3> partner. >=20 > Where are these proposals occuring, fdt@ietf.org > and at one point will they conclude, Good question. > and > is the timing of this important, critical, or optional to the process? Entirely optional. > 4> The Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) and its WISHI program > 4> can be instrumental in engaging researchers and other SDOs in this = space, > 4> or instance W3C WoT, which is working on Thing Description = Templates and > 4> related specifications. >=20 > This part seems rather aspirational. All sorts of communications are > important and beneficial, but is there some kind of implied liason = activity, > or some kind of cross-WG/RG last-call that is implied? T2TRG is not engaging in formal liaisons. It *is* working on getting = people to talk (e.g., last week the discussion we had on Azure DTDL). = For ASDF, getting information from the various ecosystems trying to get = their models expressed in SDF is vital =E2=80=94 preferably in the form = of people from these ecosystems taking part in the work, but ASDF people = taking part in the communications is a good second best. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sat Aug 8 00:45:42 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F043A0E89; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:45:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c-UtKKD9c4Tp; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84CA43A0B82; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.101] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BNvR21K57zyrT; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:45:34 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <2A11875E-43EA-4227-A6E7-A7F5A09831EC@tzi.org> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:45:33 +0200 Cc: asdf@ietf.org, json@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618565533.799698-6171c62f7c86e4dd60c9558d09dbb211 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5C210025-34B4-45BC-9A1D-66D9E92B339A@tzi.org> <3271.1596839115@localhost> <2A11875E-43EA-4227-A6E7-A7F5A09831EC@tzi.org> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Json] [Asdf] Kicking off ASDF charter discussion X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 07:45:38 -0000 On 2020-08-08, at 09:25, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 >> 2> It will also engage the still active mailing list of the >> 2> dormant JSON WG. >>=20 >> Is this about json-path, and/or json-schema? >=20 > Probably more about json data definition (which includes the = json-schema.org proposals that have been inspiring the SDF data = definition components). =E2=80=A6and it is probably worth pointing out that, while SDF itself is = notated in JSON (and thus benefits from CDDL), the data models that SDF = describes cannot be limited just to the expressive gamut of JSON data. = So a JSON data definition format such as those proposed at = json-schema.org can be an inspiration, but cannot on its own solve the = entire problem. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten