Subject: [Jsonpath] JSONPath Interim, next Wednesday March 9th

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 12:08:17 -0800

1. Who's planning to come?

2. Please submit suggested agenda items

3. To start the discussion, here are a few items I'd like to see on the
menu:

- Meta-discussion: How far are we from having something to send the IESG?
There are a few items labeled "task" on our issues list, maybe we can get
volunteers
- Regexps - I think we wanted a proposal from Cabo?
- Candidate issues:
-- Should list selectors allow filter selectors? #150
-- Normalized Paths and normalization #155
-- Have we decided whether we're going to have function notation in our
v1.0?

---

From: Glyn Normington <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:40:32 +0000

I'm planning to be there. Those agenda items look good to me.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 20:08, Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Stefan Gössner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 18:15:59 +0100

I will be there, of course ...

I'm glad to see the draft approaching a stable version, thanks to Carsten's regex work, and would like to discuss following points ...

* Addressing object and array indexes (https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/156)

* Making '@' optional (https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/162)

* Let's discuss functions ... how could an extension point here look like ?

* Is there a policy for RFCs mentioning related standards? (https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/161)

* Making output of normalized pathes mandatory in the spec ... line up ABNF with the rest ?

* Is there value in defining the term "singular path" in the spec ?

* Let's finally agree on (not) supporting equality comparisons of structured values. (https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/145)

---

From: Glyn Normington <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:54:13 +0000

Here is my input on the agenda items proposed by Tim and Stefan. This
partly a note to myself, but it might also help in discerning consensus on
particular points. I raised a couple of PRs too.

> There are a few items labeled "task" on our issues list, maybe we can get

I'd like to understand what the criteria are for sending the spec to the
IESG. E.g. what state does iregexp have to be in, does the spec need to be
virtually complete or is nearing completion ok?

The issues currently labelled "task" are:

Edit table 1:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/148
In-line examples:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/136
String normalization:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/117
Examples Appendix:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/69
Security items:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/25

#25 looks the least decided to me. #69 and #136 might turn out to be a bit
of a memory test.

I think PR 163
<https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/163>
suffices for the JSONPath spec. But more work is, of course, needed on the
iregexp spec.

> -- Should list selectors allow filter selectors? #150

I think so. See
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/165.

I believe the only loose end in #155 was to introduce Singular Paths. See
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/164.

> v1.0?

I'm not convinced the cost outweighs the benefit, but I could live with a
different consensus.

* Addressing object and array indexes
(https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/156)
>
> I'm not at all keen on this.

* Making '@' optional
(https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/162)
>
> I think '@' should be required, for readability and compatibility.

> See my earlier comment.

* Is there a policy for RFCs mentioning related standards?
(https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/issues/161)
>
> I'd prefer not to reference standards which are behind a pay-wall. That
seems inappropriate for an open standard.

> * Making output of normalized pathes mandatory in the spec ... line up
I'd prefer NOT to mandate this behaviour.

Yes, I think so. See
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/164.

* Let's finally agree on (not) supporting equality comparisons of
structured values.
(https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/145)
>
> I'd prefer PR 145 to be broken into digestible pieces so I can get my head
round each of them. Maybe we can discuss some specific examples tomorrow.

---

From: Stefan Gössner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:49:00 +0100

... when and how can I attend ... ?
--
sg