Skip to main content

IETF conflict review for draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme
conflict-review-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme-00

Yes


No Objection

Roman Danyliw
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Vigoureux)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2019-12-19) Sent
I do not see any conflict with active IETF WG **BUT** while I appreciate the new version with Barry's suggested text prefacing the using of normative language, I share Allissa's and Barry's concern of this normative language use.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2019-12-12) Sent
I often think there are confusability issues when Independent Stream documents use BCP 14 key words, and this document is a very strong example of that.  I would prefer to see an additional paragraph at the beginning of Section 2 "Terminology" that says something like, "While this document does not describe a standard, if it is implemented specific behaviour is necessary for security and interoperability.  This text, therefore, uses BCP 14 to describe that necessary behaviour."  I'd like to see that be a standard thing to put into non-standards-track documents that use BCP 14, as an additional defense against misunderstanding the document as a standard because of the key words.
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2019-12-17) Sent
Good example of a document that I expect to be confused for a standard, and that avoided having to get WG and IETF consensus for advancement despite having an IPR declaration against it.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

                            
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2019-12-18) Not sent
I still think there's latent risk with respect to (at least) Unicode normalization
when passing through non-JCS JSON processors, but that is not relevant for
the conflict review response.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

                            
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent