JSON Path
charter-ietf-jsonpath-01

[Ballot comment]
This seems ready for external review.

The RFC Editor has trained me to be sensitive to the distinction between
"which" and "that" (and that sense triggered on this text).

%  Where there are differences, the working group will analyze those
%  differences and make choices that rough consensus considers technically
%  best [...]

I assume this is "differences between existing implementations"?

[Ballot block]
I'm very supportive of forming this working group, and have just one small issue with the "spin" on the goals in the charter proposal

    The WG will develop a standards-track JSONPath specification, with
    the primary goal of capturing the common semantics of existing
    implementations and, where there are differences, choosing
    semantics with the goal of causing the least disruption among
    JSONPath users.

I fear that this text appears to say that we primarily want to develop a dumbed-down compromise mush, and I'm sure that's not what we really mean.  The *primary* goal is, surely, to develop a specification for JSONPath that is technically sound, complete, and useful.  And our resolution of differences is, surely, going to be based on analysis of the tradeoffs and selection of the technically best choices.

I propose this (or some similar) alternative way of saying this:

NEW
    The WG will develop a standards-track JSONPath specification that
    is technically sound and complete, based on the common semantics
    and other aspects of existing implementations.  Where there are
    differences, the working group will analyze those differences and
    make choices that rough consensus considers technically best, with
    an aim toward minimizing disruption among the different JSONPath
    implementations.
END

Does that make sense?