Shepherd writeup
rfc7158-10

Shepherd writesup for draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis

1. Summary

Paul Hoffman (one of the WG co-chairs) is the document shepherd. Pete Resnick is the responsible AD.

This document is an update to RFC 4627, the RFC that describes the JSON format. (Note that there two
other independent definitions of JSON: json.org, and ECMA-262 (Edition 5.1, June 2011). This
document is a minimal update to RFC 4627 that corrects some errors, adds a bit of clarification, and
points out topics where there have been interoperability issues since RFC 4627 was published. As
stated in the charter, this document is meant to be a Proposed Standard.

2. Review and Consensus

This document had a wonderfully wide and deep review. The WG had a high number of IETF regulars and
newcomers. Although we had little input from the members of TC39 in Ecma, we had lots of input from
the larger JSON-using community, including many active developers of JSON libraries.

The WG went through a couple of phases during the review, with some folks wanting to fix a lot of things,
some wanting to basicly push it out untouched, and still others wanting a light touch with useful notes.
In then end, there was rough group consensus for the latter.

Near the end of the review cycle, Ecma issued a new document that defined (mostly) just the syntax
for JSON, Standard ECMA-404. The syntaxes in this document and ECMA-404 appear identical. It
is worthwhile noting that the syntaxes are described in different languages (this document uses
ABNF, the Ecma document uses racetrack-style pictures). 

3. Intellectual Property

There was no WG discussion of IPR given that this is an update to a format document for which there
was no IPR statements in the first place.

4. Other Points

The WG charter says:
  The resulting document will be jointly published as an RFC and by ECMA.
  ECMA participants will be participating in the working group editing
  through the normal process of working group participation. The
  responsible AD will coordinate the approval process with ECMA so that
  the versions of the document that are approved by each body are the
  same.
None of that happened. This document stands on its own, as does ECMA-404 and upcoming revision to
the ECMAScript standard.
Back