Hi Tom, > On 21 Jul 2017, at 18:34, tom p. <[email protected]> wrote: > > Leif > > K/V > > Not something that I would expect to implement but rather my views are > based on tracking the work of NETCONF and RESTCONF, the latter being > JSON. I see the difficulties encounterd in the definition of RESTCONF > and am very clear that JSON as a language is incomplete and somewhat > loosely defined, sloppy even.
Without taking a position on K/V versa JSON: I thought draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-04 was fairly complete and can be implemented without relying on any other documents. Yes, there are some interesting corner cases, but I doubt they will affect MTA STS use. > I do not see the availability of > libraries as affecting this - if the underlying technology is incomplete > and loosely defined, then what a library that implements just that > technology has to offer will perforce be incomplete and loosely > defiined. > > K/V I find precise and unambiguous. > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leif Johansson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 12:10 PM >> >> We had a (less than spirited) discussion in Praha about the K/V vs > JSON. >> >> There was no clear consensus for switching from JSON to K/V based on >> the proposal from the spec authors sent to the list last week. >> >> Victor expressed his views clearly and I'll not ask him to repeat >> himself. I will attempt to summarize the discussion - feel free >> to correct me! >> >> The situation is that of the active participants that are also >> implementors one (postfix - Victor) has said that he does not believe >> that postfix will ship with a standard JSON-based implementation but >> that this doesn't preclude third-party plugins. >> >> The other major implementor who is also an active participant (google) >> has stated that they have a JSON implementation but that they are >> also eager to close this issue. One more implementor (Chris) has > stated >> no preference but also said that his (native) JSON parser is somewhat >> smaller than his K/V one. >> >> Based on this and falling back to the IETF WG process as chair I would >> conclude that there isn't enough consensus to make a change and that >> we are staying with JSON. >> >> I would prefer to have more opinions (implementors in particular) but >> we are also going to get past this. In particular I would like to hear >> from implementors who (like Victor) have a problem living with either >> choice. >> >> Please provide your feedback by EOB 1st of August. >> >> Cheers Leif >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Uta mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
