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.