I have to agree with Julian here: this is not a change that's
appropriate to do in an RFC Editor note. The change is probably fine,
but draft revisions are cheap and it's easy enough to post a revised
I-D to make sure we can all see the final version in context.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Julian Reschke
On 2017-07-18 10:05, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On 18 Jul 2017, at 08:52, Julian Reschke
On 2017-07-17 18:33, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
The JSONBIS WG decided to update recommendation on Unicode encoding to
be UTF-8. (For details see the RFC Editor's notes in the approval
message that will be sent out shortly.) This took a bit of time to
debate in the WG, so the document approval took a bit longer than
Alexey, as the responsible AD
The last WG mail related to this topic is over 2 months old, and I don't
see any declaration of consensus.
It would be good if the chair would send a summary about what's going on
to the WG mailing list before anything gets finalized.
(I note that
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/> has been
saying "Revised ID Needed" for 48 days, and I was under the assumption that
there'd be indeed a revised ID).
I just posted a message on this: this is approved with updated RFC Editor
notes. See the approval message once it is sent.
This is not how it's supposed to work. Please have a new I-D posted and get
people to review the changes in context. This is a *very* important piece of
standards work - we need to make sure it meets quality standards.
From a quick glance at
already note that the appendix "Changes from RFC 7159" is now incomplete.
Best regards, Julian
json mailing list