Javascript Object Notation
charter-ietf-json-02
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-16 for -00-00)
Unknown
Probably a detail, but it puzzles me. Maybe I read too much into this... "Any changes that break compatibility with existing implementations of either RFC 4627 or the ECMAScript specification will need to have very strong justification and broad support." Versus "Any changes that break compatibility with the RFC 4627 or the ECMAScript specifications will need to have very strong justification and broad support." Is this intentional that you mention the existing implementations of RFC 4627? Do you expect discrepancies between the "existing implementations of RFC 4627" and the "RFC 4627 specifications" (and ECMAScript specification btw)? The way it's written implies that the existing implementations are the reference versus the specifications.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-09 for -00-00)
Unknown
Please define what a serialization is for Pete ;)
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-05-15 for -00-00)
Unknown
I wonder if we know how the mechanics of joint publication with ECMA will work out. I think everyone regretted doing that with W3C for xmldsig even though there was good will on all sides afaik, and that it'd be better if the WG just published the RFC having checked with ECMA at WGLC and IETF LC. Note - I don't object to the idea of joint publication, I'm just wary that it might turn into a swamp of conflicting rules about copyright, IPR and when stuff happens in each process that could add significant delay and uncertainty and might give any folks in the rough far too much opportunity for fun. A possibly stupid idea if you do want to stick with joint publication: Add something to the milestones which causes a joint publication of <I don't care what> early on to debug the joint publication thing. Feel free to entirely ignore that though.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown