ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Json] draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03: recommendation to use UTF-8

2017-07-18 06:28:09
I hadn't thought of it as an appeal, but I do think the current
document state should be "Approved, Announcement to be Sent" with a
substate of "Revised I-D Needed".  If an appeal is what's needed to
change that, then... yeah, sure.

Barry

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Pete Resnick 
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Alexey,

I believe Julian and Barry's notes constitute an appeal of the Protocol
Action, and I think they're probably right. Please rescind it, publish the
new draft, and give people a bit to review. No need for another formal LC,
but doing this in a note to the RFC Editor isn't kosher.

pr


On 18 Jul 2017, at 13:04, Barry Leiba wrote:

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.

Thanks,
Barry


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Julian Reschke 
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de>
wrote:

On 2017-07-18 10:05, Alexey Melnikov wrote:


Hi Julian,

On 18 Jul 2017, at 08:52, Julian Reschke 
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:

On 2017-07-17 18:33, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi,
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
originally expected.
Best Regards,
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

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/writeup/>, I
already note that the appendix "Changes from RFC 7159" is now incomplete.

Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json


_______________________________________________
json mailing list
json(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json