JSON Type Definition
draft-ucarion-json-type-definition-04

draft-ucarion-json-type-definition has been presented for publication as
an Experimental RFC in the Independent Stream.

The document has a long history having started as draft-ucarion-jddf in
August 2019 and ran 6 revisions before changing name to the current
draft which is on its 4th revision.

The draft has been discussed on the JSON list (the mailing list for the
closed JSON working group) where it attracted some comments and
suggestions that the author acted on (see the Acknowledgements section).
However, since that working group is closed, the author did not see any
obvious place to develop his ideas within the IETF and came to the ISE.

The ISE contacted the ART ADs (2020-01-25 and 2020-04-07) to see whether
they think this work should be handled in their Area via a working group
(new or existing) or through AD sponsorship. The ISE also sent mail to
DISPATCH (2020-04-10) and the JSON list (2020-04-20). At this stage
there seems to be zero interest in doing the work in the IETF although
the author would have been happy, and the ISE would sill like to hear if
that could be made to work.

Once the 5742 review was requested, the ART ADs noted that recent work
in the 3GPP has lead to a plan in the ART Area to create of a new IETF
working group to discuss JSON schemas. The author and ISE are currently
discussing the implications for the document, and the ADs and ISE are
trying to understand the schedule for WG creation.

Before bringing the document to the ISE, the author received additional
input from Evgeny Poberezkin, Tim Bray, Anders Rundgren, and James
Manger. The document has also received several reviews for the ISE. Most
notably from Carsten Bormann, Henk Birkholz, and Nico Williams. The
ISE also checked back with the authors of RFC 8610. The ISE (of course)
also did a review.

This document contains a very clear statement in the Abstract and
Introduction that the work is not the product of the IETF and does
not have IETF consensus. It also makes clear that this is an Experiment
and sets out the objectives of the experimental work.

The document makes no request for IANA action.

(Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/ISE:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ucarion-json-type-definition-03 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

draft-ucarion-json-type-definition has been presented for publication as
an Experimental RFC in the Independent Stream.

The document has a long history having started as draft-ucarion-jddf in
August 2019 and ran 6 revisions before changing name to the current
draft which is on its 4th revision.

The draft has been discussed on the JSON list (the mailing list for the
closed JSON working group) where it attracted some comments and
suggestions that the author acted on (see the Acknowledgements section).
However, since that working group is closed, the author did not see any
obvious place to develop his ideas within the IETF and came to the ISE.

The ISE contacted the ART ADs (2020-01-25 and 2020-04-07) to see whether
they think this work should be handled in their Area via a working group
(new or existing) or through AD sponsorship. The ISE also sent mail to
DISPATCH (2020-04-10) and the JSON list (2020-04-20). At this stage
there seems to be zero interest in doing the work in the IETF although
the author would have been happy, and the ISE would sill like to hear if
that could be made to work.

Once the 5742 review was requested, the ART ADs noted that recent work
in the 3GPP has lead to a plan in the ART Area to create of a new IETF
working group to discuss JSON schemas. The author and ISE are currently
discussing the implications for the document, and the ADs and ISE are
trying to understand the schedule for WG creation.

Before bringing the document to the ISE, the author received additional
input from Evgeny Poberezkin, Tim Bray, Anders Rundgren, and James
Manger. The document has also received several reviews for the ISE. Most
notably from Carsten Bormann and Nico Williams. The ISE also checked
back with the authors of RFC 8610. The ISE (of course) also did a
review.

This document contains a very clear statement in the Abstract and
Introduction that the work is not the product of the IETF and does
not have IETF consensus. It also makes clear that this is an Experiment
and sets out the objectives of the experimental work.

The document makes no request for IANA action.

draft-ucarion-json-type-definition has been presented for publication as
an Experimental RFC in the Independent Stream.

The document has a long history having started as draft-ucarion-jddf in
August 2019 and ran 6 revisions before changing name to the current
draft which is on its 4th revision.

The draft has been discussed on the JSON list (the mailing list for the
closed JSON working group) where it attracted some comments and
suggestions that the author acted on (see the Acknowledgements section).
However, since that working group is closed, the author did not see any
obvious place to develop his ideas within the IETF and came to the ISE.

The ISE contacted the ART ADs (2020-01-25 and 2020-04-07) to see whether
they think this work should be handled in their Area via a working group
(new or existing) or through AD sponsorship. The ISE also sent mail to
DISPATCH (2020-04-10) and the JSON list (2020-04-20). At this stage
there seems to be zero interest in doing the work in the IETF although
the author would have been happy, and the ISE would sill like to hear if
that could be made to work.

Before bringing the document to the ISE, the author received additional
input from Evgeny Poberezkin, Tim Bray, Anders Rundgren, and James
Manger. The document has also received several reviews for the ISE. Most
notably from Carsten Bormann and Nico Williams. The ISE also checked
back with the authors of RFC 8610. The ISE (of course) also did a
review.

The document makes no request for IANA action.