IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 24 February 2013 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B20A21F8FFA; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:11:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbWoEu1jJfeN; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF5721F8FF7; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:11:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r1ODB9Z9020863; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:11:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.135] (p54893FCD.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.63.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D9AE3156; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:11:08 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <7EB82E7A-F664-46F8-8137-83DF0C3F5536@tzi.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:11:07 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85CB7BA1-2C92-4C52-A1C3-7FD430396725@tzi.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70F8950CF@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <7EB82E7A-F664-46F8-8137-83DF0C3F5536@tzi.org>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: [Json] msgpack/binarypack (Re: [apps-discuss] JSON mailing list and BoF)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:11:29 -0000

On Feb 19, 2013, at 17:39, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On Feb 19, 2013, at 00:47, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> As an individual, I'm +1 on that.  I love msgpack, and don't mind the
>> addition of UTF8 as a separate type.  Was frsyuki involved in the draft,
>> or at least know that it happened?
> 
> I tried to involve him.

Well, I did engage the msgpack community some more.

You can find a transcript of some 275 messages about separating byte and UTF-8 strings at:

	https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack/issues/121

Summary:
Some members of the msgpack community are very enraged that this change hasn't happened earlier.
Of course, some have gone off and done their own incompatible forks.
Others are very enraged that any change is happening at all, and that new people are intruding on their turf.
(And some probably feel guilty that it took a ****storm from outside to finally make this change.)

frsyuki is now working on a proposal that solves the problem:

	https://gist.github.com/frsyuki/5022569

The proposal is technically complete (and has already been implemented).
It already is pretty good at the details, too, but this whole thing is being done in a process that is closer to Japanese consensus processes than to IETF culture.

My -01 will be fully aligned with whatever the state of frsyuki's proposal will be on Monday's I-D deadline (find today's snapshot at http://www.tzi.de/~cabo/draft-bormann-apparea-bpack-01pre2.txt).
(frsyuki's proposal may change some more, but those will in all likelihood be minor details.)
I think his overall thinking is fine, but it is much more dominated by a requirement for backwards compatibility than an IETF process would be.

So, the larger question on whether the msgpack community is ready to take part (or just endure) in an IETF-style consensus process (including handing over change control) still looms.

That doesn't diminish from the requirement for a msgpack-like format, and I think we should use Hallway Time in Orlando to discuss potential ways forward.

I any case, I definitely don't want to disturb the constructive discussion about chartering a very narrow JSON fixup WG with this work.
(I do want to find a home for it, soon, though: I want to build other specs on top of it.)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email