Subject: Re: [Json] jsonbis - Not having a session at IETF 100

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 06:00:01 +0100

On 2017-11-09 15:40, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ...
> I've seen a copy of the to-be-published document, but I am not sure if
> it would be Ok to distribute it publicly.
> ...

FWIW: 
<https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm> 
is the new version.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 11:19:51 -0800

On 12/08/2017 09:00 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> <https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-404.htm> is
> the new version.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json

>From that document:

A definition of the JSON syntax was subsequently published as IETF RFC 4627
in July 2006. ECMA-262, Fifth Edition (2009) included a normative
specification of the JSON grammar.  This specification, ECMA-404, replaces
those earlier definitions of the JSON syntax.  Concurrently, the IETF
published RFC 7158/7159 and in 2017 RFC 8259 as updates to RFC 4627. The
JSON syntax specified by this specification and by RFC 8259 are intended to
be identical.

Not exactly what I was hoping for, but at least 8259 is listed as a normative
reference.

peter

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:33:31 +0100

On Dec 9, 2017, at 20:19, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The

And that is the juicy part — ECMA-404 defines a syntax, RFC 8259 will define the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format, which has been designed to use the same syntax.

One of the ways in which this difference is elucidated in RFC-8259-to-be is: 
  "Note, however, that ECMA-404 allows several
   practices that this specification recommends avoiding in the
   interests of maximal interoperability."

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:46:39 +0900

There is also this text, in Section 3 (Normative References):

Bray, T., Ed. "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange 
Format", RFC 8259.

This specification and [RFC 8259] both provide specifications of the 
JSON grammar but do so using different formalisms. The intent is that 
both specifications define the same syntactic language. If a difference 
is found between them, Ecma International and the IETF will work 
together to update both documents. If an error is found with either 
document, the other should be examined to see if it has a similar error, 
and fixed if possible. If either document is changed in the future, Ecma 
International and the IETF will work together to ensure that the two 
documents stay aligned through the change. RFC 8259, also defines 
various semantic restrictions on the use of the JSON syntax. Those 
restrictions are not normative for this specification.

I think that this is quite precise and adequate. The only thing I'd fix 
is the comma just after "RFC 8259" in the last sentence.

I'm personally quite satisfied with this, and would like to thank 
everybody involved for their hard work in coordinating this behind the 
scenes.

Regards,   Martin.