The I-JSON Message Format
draft-ietf-json-i-json-06

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    json mailing list <json@ietf.org>,
    json chair <json-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'The I-JSON Message Format' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-json-i-json-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The I-JSON Message Format'
  (draft-ietf-json-i-json-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the JavaScript Object Notation Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Barry Leiba.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-i-json/


Technical Summary

   This document defines a profile of JSON (RFC 7159).  This profile
   further restricts characters, numbers, object members; it also
   provides additional recommendations for protocol use.

Working Group Summary

   The WG discussion was not as extensive as for RFC 7159, but still
   broad.  Two major points were brought up in WG Last Call: defining a
   link relation profile URI, and the use of base64 versus bsae64url.

   It was suggested that a profile URI be defined as an alternative to
   defining a media type or media type suffix (which is also not defined
   in this document). However, the WG could not reach consensus on this
   change.

   There was considerable debate over the use of base64 versus
   base64url.  The WG consensus was that binary data be encoded as some
   form of base64 but could not reach any consensus on which specific
   variant.  The document first specified base64url and without
   consensus to change it, it remains the recommendation in the
   document.

Document Quality

   Overall, the consensus on publishing this document is rough.  At
   least one participant still questions its utility.

Personnel

   Matthew Miller (JSON WG co-chair) is the document shepherd
   Pete Resnick is the responsible AD.

IANA Note

  There are no IANA Considerations.