Re: Consensus Call on Adoption of POSH

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

[ speaking as a co-chair of the JSON Working Group ]

The sole item for the JSON WG -- an update to RFC4627 -- is currently
in the RFC editor's queue.  The WG discussed the topic of comments a
number of times, but there was no consensus to add comments to the
JSON format at the time.

The JSON WG is currently discussing what to do next.

[ speaking personally ]

I don't think the lack of a specific syntax for comments is all that
harmful.  Plenty of systems use JSON today for configuration, and seem
to be getting by fine; *some* of them use a special syntax, but many
(from the discussions in the jSON WG, it might even be a majority)
make use of special name/value pairs within the objects.


- -- 
- - m&m

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

On 1/30/14, 8:12 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> (As the "other chair:)
> 
> I concur with Joe that extensions to JSON itself belong in the JSON
> working group. That being said, if we run into a JSON limitation,
> nothing prevents us (or some subset of us) from taking the problem
> to the JSON wg. Perhaps if any JSON chairs happen to be monitoring
> this thread, they can comment on how this sort of thing fits in
> their charter and schedule ;-)
> 
> (As individual: I am agnostic towards the need for comments, and if
> they are best handled in JSON (the format, not the wg) vs
> elsewhere. I await further discussion to form an opinion.)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/30/14 1:48 PM, "Alexander Holler" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 30.01.2014 13:25, schrieb Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr):
>>>> (As chair)
>>>> 
>>>> JSON comments are *out of scope* for the XMPP working group.
>>>> Please take your suggestions to the JSON working group if you
>>>> think you have an approach that can be adopted.
>>> 
>>> Hmm, so you are going to define or adopt a standard which lacks
>>> the possibility to use comments (either to provide human
>>> readable descriptions or as a way to quickly deactivate
>>> something)?
>> 
>> I carefully didn't say that.  Choosing something other than JSON
>> is certainly in scope.
>> 
>>> I would't call this out of scope.
>> 
>> If there are others that feel this way, let's have the discussion
>> here to try to change my mind, I suppose.  Failing that, there's
>> an appeal process.  I will say that when there's a currently
>> chartered and active working group in a particular space (json),
>> it would be really odd to do work on that protocol in a different
>> working group (xmpp).
>> 
>>> If you adopt POSH without providing (defining) a way how to add
>>> comments to the JSON definitions, this will be a serious flaw
>>> (in my humble opinion).
>> 
>> That part of the discussion is also in scope.  Changing *JSON
>> itself* is the only thing I'm declaring out of scope for this
>> wg.
>> 
>>> I'm not calling that the XMPP working group fixes that serious
>>> problem of JSON, I'm calling that they will add a sentence like
>>> "comments may start with a #) to the POSH standard or it's
>>> adoption if the working group is going to adopt it. You might
>>> call it a "variant" of JSON.
>> 
>> Setting up a competitor to JSON is not in this group's charter.
>> We don't have to use JSON, but if we do, we'll have a normative
>> reference to the JSON RFC.
>> 
>>> Anyway, I've just wanted to provide a maybe useful comment for
>>> POSH and don't want to discuss JSON.
>> 
>> Let's continue that discussion then.  Is there anyone else that
>> thinks that comments are important in POSH?  Are  those comments
>> more important than using JSON?  Can we come up with a format
>> that includes comments in a JSON-compatible manner?
>> 
>> -- Joe Hildebrand
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ xmpp mailing
>> list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
> 
> _______________________________________________ xmpp mailing list 
> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS6m+zAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1r4IIAI+/MgKzDl1Jdps6oqCdF3AO
Bn0gwobcV8zXU8jMrgEdW3HbuydzHYLdo19hIN8AK7gJeZSZQrMuczKlxCnsfIDW
x85b1heSaB1z1H3DmJlBE/1LF4BwRroJ8mEnvtVPbqn758r7lKNwjWUaH03qvL7Z
USV8nBZuA1FNvx8+VxJh/2xE6eYiShMmyVCyJDbCA7eR72WLZj4vzh4syg8htvEk
d/FGlbwQjn51C/87mhU/fEKCWsjelOTP3NlmRr2U/uVLPGgUU6aoBww+UobXU9Vk
KR7mFAY7YKwRW3ZA2bFNTiHsAwPEVF5hOIXLxn8X+egP3EdEZuN9d68H6UwvO1s=
=/m++
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----