From nobody Wed Dec 1 04:30:16 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA313A07F3 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 04:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqgR4hpL_wUs for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 04:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1013A07F2 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 04:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id cq22-20020a17090af99600b001a9550a17a5so20911451pjb.2 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 04:30:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ODY09CrhY9CPkbwQgxdKEw8jb/cCLooUrs7X3hV5eh0=; b=hTfA23iYNF/l+Ox0u2cOfOBM8E7z+X5j0+zdFHvqj+UJ2nrJi13OnnxKnaKha26Eiy AgGMtD2zFdg1OOhZW5ozF5woazx4SPwko+jQl2koGfN/P9W1Pngr5L2ucAxOOPs8dS45 K55XR2vTkmuB1hL+S3mSm6jsNdPSQTBUGpDsuVukD6e3U3Cmi0PNEa8LguwtjO9PYM2g PriER/zGWQ6gaj/ajfNNwQwEj/g2uetw89+JPofo/nuN8f1ECB9aGo327xHxZqzJ/Iu/ GFHHHrtcOFvlL6jsOHLr28MDZoaF0wcejVPXoXUoE6mZEsuATsBgTlDEFyPDPMUOWTYX w+Vg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ODY09CrhY9CPkbwQgxdKEw8jb/cCLooUrs7X3hV5eh0=; b=4IhzsjkD+slNNCY4ZygeW2imCD4iRPRGJ2S++NgQxLOVNog0Vqb9c6rddgmYOQs1wr LWjuoOXTOrtGYjSdEmC/Oc3Q7x8Qy4BG9iSTCyUPoawZl0+tmgF2eFfH4fl8/CO4zToX DAN9JqJRmPnqAlKXGc0MdD205dE2dKUcZQW79tW71Gk8mWbI+VwOIb9cOcwA31n6GnYi Wiq5RRKHEQK1qICibzryNNAfU1lr0lYfwyqnXXWMF80cQ841UtAMqDzJZZ2vrCGFNbar IYovykkfOYb8AdT5DX1xH/721ZQl5lB6V0DGYuBsfVhNjff+6CIL8FvdDmWeHaFxZei5 fAJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532O2NVUhYH22os10z3mUyQcR8f9gOLuKv/LYBFNxKJrTQzJ/KRE 3k9CdZffRwqfB2APM+UN4u0BDHFQJ8OZfSJo1RXjLlYIgNM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxj97SfKljLrwoZr6P+FH7mkp4jjJqNUL0mTmp+P12MyYDOiIJ6qYKN3i074x18vQe7rRCfbfu7Vx63rzyXSQo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6b07:b0:142:852a:9e1f with SMTP id o7-20020a1709026b0700b00142852a9e1fmr6925309plk.29.1638361809035; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 04:30:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <03E1325D-268F-4380-A5D0-F45E2BE61360@gmail.com> <6205D3F4-C144-47EC-BEAD-C84B0ABF76AE@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <6205D3F4-C144-47EC-BEAD-C84B0ABF76AE@tzi.org> From: Glyn Normington Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:29:57 +0000 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: James , jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a423af05d214d538" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] Draft minutes, consensus points, and actions from IETF 112 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 12:30:15 -0000 --000000000000a423af05d214d538 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I put up some PRs to try to move us forward: * 138: Relegate XPath details to the appendix - this doesn't change any normative text, but puts the XPath stuff in one place * 139: Delete the "in" operator - this was the consensus at IETF 112 * 140: Delete expression language - this is to take the temperature of the WG regarding ("container" rather than filter ) expressions On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 00:08, Carsten Bormann wrote: > I have not forgotten these action points, but I actually first created a > pull request based on Michael McCool=E2=80=99s comments: > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/137 > > I have structured this into multiple commits in case we can=E2=80=99t mer= ge all of > this immediately. > > New (somewhat) technical content: > > * The text is now using I-JSON (RFC 7493) to discuss integer number value > ranges. > This removes some weasel wording that is likely to cause interop issues= . > * Some of the text about false/truthy is gone, some more changes will be > needed. > * The text about negative indexes is now less misleading. > > There is also a little markdown adjustment, and a lot of editorial fixes. > > Thanks to Michael for the review! > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > On 2021-11-14, at 12:35, James wrote: > > > > All, > > > > The minutes for our session at IETF 112 are now uploaded to datatracker > here: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-112-jsonpath/ > > > > Consensus: > > > > * #124 - Won't be used, but can be added in future if there's real dema= nd > > * #127 - Won't be included in the specification, but can be part of > extensions > > * #119 - In boolean contexts, path converts to false if nodelist is > empty, but does not check value(s) > > * #117 - Normalization not part of spec, codepoint comparison should be > used > > * #109 - We acknowledge but won't address this issue > > * #95 - This won't be part of spec as it's an API problem but could be > included in future > > > > Outstanding action items that were captured from the meeting: > > > > * Draft Status - Tim to make a PR > > * #127 - Example queries need to be written > > * #124 - Carsten to comment that consensus is to leave it for an > extension > > * #123 - Discuss use cases to get consensus of undefined vs NaN on list > > * #119 - Carsten to make further edits based on consensus > > * #109 - Carsten to update the issue > > * #70 - Have discussion on list with known options > > > > Please let me know of any omissions or errata. > > > > - J > > -- > JSONpath mailing list > JSONpath@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath > --000000000000a423af05d214d538 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I put up some PRs to try to move us forward:

* 139: Delete the "in&qu= ot; operator - this was the consensus at IETF 112
* 140:= Delete expression language - this is to take the temperature= of the WG regarding ("container" rather than filter ) expression= s




On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at = 00:08, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org= > wrote:
I ha= ve not forgotten these action points, but I actually first created a pull r= equest based on Michael McCool=E2=80=99s comments:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-json= path/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/137

I have structured this into multiple commits in case we can=E2=80=99t merge= all of this immediately.

New (somewhat) technical content:

* The text is now using I-JSON (RFC 7493) to discuss integer number value r= anges.
=C2=A0 This removes some weasel wording that is likely to cause interop iss= ues.
* Some of the text about false/truthy is gone, some more changes will be ne= eded.
* The text about negative indexes is now less misleading.

There is also a little markdown adjustment, and a lot of editorial fixes.
Thanks to Michael for the review!

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten


> On 2021-11-14, at 12:35, James <james.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The minutes for our session at IETF 112 are now uploaded to datatracke= r here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-= 112-jsonpath/
>
> Consensus:
>
> * #124 - Won't be used, but can be added in future if there's = real demand
> * #127 - Won't be included in the specification, but can be part o= f extensions
> * #119 - In boolean contexts, path converts to false if nodelist is em= pty, but does not check value(s)
> * #117 - Normalization not part of spec, codepoint comparison should b= e used
> * #109 - We acknowledge but won't address this issue
> * #95 - This won't be part of spec as it's an API problem but = could be included in future
>
> Outstanding action items that were captured from the meeting:
>
> * Draft Status - Tim to make a PR
> * #127 - Example queries need to be written
> * #124 - Carsten to comment that consensus is to leave it for an exten= sion
> * #123 - Discuss use cases to get consensus of undefined vs NaN on lis= t
> * #119 - Carsten to make further edits based on consensus
> * #109 - Carsten to update the issue
> * #70 - Have discussion on list with known options
>
> Please let me know of any omissions or errata.
>
> - J

--
JSONpath mailing list
JSONpath@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath
--000000000000a423af05d214d538-- From nobody Wed Dec 1 08:10:00 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EECC3A08D9 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 08:09:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AzFlYQj8Hu3Q for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 08:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F9243A08DC for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 08:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id w33-20020a17090a6ba400b001a722a06212so1306069pjj.0 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 08:09:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fw/U830QBwC3kE+JIf3/IAF0IWAfvGTn046Or1qnA+M=; b=XpggK1uS+l12YzuMyoAg9m+Fp7MpDNcOJYcvvrseI8U29gh55KmKZbFKQQYy5x8Wms 6YGzlGY8hKTUr8oT8yVDQPj1+X1NMX5BjN6Yt8IipOALlX2yMP7sahFXy9sUGe4Cy7mt acEQgwlNZcYImq8kilXIoNruGkPxse1bMmfi5RwMxtPdJxbfiCV9FQxXpzqfpidA9tDY XGPNh46zIxeTc4y/nrLaVmzukzGhCGiO39MTLIMwnzE+Vx+y+VmGrQw6iSKtlTihKB9R 3U2bH+QWXRu2+KF9OazXAq23AGyj4kXUlCMCXBU4Vs/aP6HwrtlqKZzh5nCnVEwxjnOC ZJkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fw/U830QBwC3kE+JIf3/IAF0IWAfvGTn046Or1qnA+M=; b=GnBvI4pRExFEmAiJG7Fvht6tDalcbCAhLSDpWIr3QIwdNQ1TNPBSoHPGyqbVwapRu8 BvaPATYhr7v7n+nRnjrDCAH05Mm0YXEL5NUk0xTTSdVpnwV2F4BwCorJA09txdSuJu4O 1jvKlYbRCleddsDdsYpL608A9/yv5V1algGkobE6UdDCyPOjzCgYDlLEDHrepZmrZozN xx3ctYzi5xp3rTfKzLzEhSsjHsA2cI66/5OYJrpR3YM28Z2fXFFJnAOEqCzWrx8jijSn U9Ap8CKTIjh5OQO3LlmQh43/2n+GOHE41O4KOY2yADKL/JGWbr2rHJX6ZLn540xscZpi wZEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532DZK0jOQYOF1xspkE1GoZE1cH6XhMOgB8SOmbOxYD5zCN0+FW5 hs3m9N3VWSUdd0xGS8PoZaDzWsR6eE2RT0ZxzoY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4GjFMSMuNyddZ/NL6crhWjXMdpF4UAVFTCEjTVCrNW7FaUVS51k4pIPW7vsdq0kwQ22DRUXlP+SckZ4iglUw= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1d0f:: with SMTP id on15mr8715450pjb.144.1638374985085; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 08:09:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <03E1325D-268F-4380-A5D0-F45E2BE61360@gmail.com> <6205D3F4-C144-47EC-BEAD-C84B0ABF76AE@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: From: Glyn Normington Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:09:33 +0000 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: James , jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fec5dd05d217e628" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] Draft minutes, consensus points, and actions from IETF 112 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:09:58 -0000 --000000000000fec5dd05d217e628 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm leaving the approved PRs open for a day or two to ensure global consensus. On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 12:29, Glyn Normington wrote: > I put up some PRs to try to move us forward: > > * 138: Relegate XPath details to the appendix > - > this doesn't change any normative text, but puts the XPath stuff in one > place > > > * 139: Delete the "in" operator > - > this was the consensus at IETF 112 > * 140: Delete expression language > - > this is to take the temperature of the WG regarding ("container" rather > than filter ) expressions > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 00:08, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> I have not forgotten these action points, but I actually first created a >> pull request based on Michael McCool=E2=80=99s comments: >> >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/137 >> >> I have structured this into multiple commits in case we can=E2=80=99t me= rge all >> of this immediately. >> >> New (somewhat) technical content: >> >> * The text is now using I-JSON (RFC 7493) to discuss integer number valu= e >> ranges. >> This removes some weasel wording that is likely to cause interop issue= s. >> * Some of the text about false/truthy is gone, some more changes will be >> needed. >> * The text about negative indexes is now less misleading. >> >> There is also a little markdown adjustment, and a lot of editorial fixes= . >> >> Thanks to Michael for the review! >> >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >> >> >> > On 2021-11-14, at 12:35, James wrote: >> > >> > All, >> > >> > The minutes for our session at IETF 112 are now uploaded to datatracke= r >> here: >> > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-112-jsonpath/ >> > >> > Consensus: >> > >> > * #124 - Won't be used, but can be added in future if there's real >> demand >> > * #127 - Won't be included in the specification, but can be part of >> extensions >> > * #119 - In boolean contexts, path converts to false if nodelist is >> empty, but does not check value(s) >> > * #117 - Normalization not part of spec, codepoint comparison should b= e >> used >> > * #109 - We acknowledge but won't address this issue >> > * #95 - This won't be part of spec as it's an API problem but could be >> included in future >> > >> > Outstanding action items that were captured from the meeting: >> > >> > * Draft Status - Tim to make a PR >> > * #127 - Example queries need to be written >> > * #124 - Carsten to comment that consensus is to leave it for an >> extension >> > * #123 - Discuss use cases to get consensus of undefined vs NaN on lis= t >> > * #119 - Carsten to make further edits based on consensus >> > * #109 - Carsten to update the issue >> > * #70 - Have discussion on list with known options >> > >> > Please let me know of any omissions or errata. >> > >> > - J >> >> -- >> JSONpath mailing list >> JSONpath@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath >> > --000000000000fec5dd05d217e628 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm leaving the approved PRs open for a day or two to = ensure global consensus.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 12:29, Glyn Normington = <glyn.normington.work@= gmail.com> wrote:
I put up some PRs to try to move us forwar= d:

* 138: Relegate XPath details to the appen= dix - this doesn't change any normative text, but puts the XPath st= uff in one place =20
* 139: Delete the "in" o= perator - this was the consensus at IETF 112
* 140: Delete expression language - this is to take the temperature of the WG= regarding ("container" rather than filter ) expressions




On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 00:08, Car= sten Bormann <cabo@tzi= .org> wrote:
I have not forgotten these action points, but I actually first created = a pull request based on Michael McCool=E2=80=99s comments:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-json= path/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/137

I have structured this into multiple commits in case we can=E2=80=99t merge= all of this immediately.

New (somewhat) technical content:

* The text is now using I-JSON (RFC 7493) to discuss integer number value r= anges.
=C2=A0 This removes some weasel wording that is likely to cause interop iss= ues.
* Some of the text about false/truthy is gone, some more changes will be ne= eded.
* The text about negative indexes is now less misleading.

There is also a little markdown adjustment, and a lot of editorial fixes.
Thanks to Michael for the review!

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten


> On 2021-11-14, at 12:35, James <james.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> The minutes for our session at IETF 112 are now uploaded to datatracke= r here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-= 112-jsonpath/
>
> Consensus:
>
> * #124 - Won't be used, but can be added in future if there's = real demand
> * #127 - Won't be included in the specification, but can be part o= f extensions
> * #119 - In boolean contexts, path converts to false if nodelist is em= pty, but does not check value(s)
> * #117 - Normalization not part of spec, codepoint comparison should b= e used
> * #109 - We acknowledge but won't address this issue
> * #95 - This won't be part of spec as it's an API problem but = could be included in future
>
> Outstanding action items that were captured from the meeting:
>
> * Draft Status - Tim to make a PR
> * #127 - Example queries need to be written
> * #124 - Carsten to comment that consensus is to leave it for an exten= sion
> * #123 - Discuss use cases to get consensus of undefined vs NaN on lis= t
> * #119 - Carsten to make further edits based on consensus
> * #109 - Carsten to update the issue
> * #70 - Have discussion on list with known options
>
> Please let me know of any omissions or errata.
>
> - J

--
JSONpath mailing list
JSONpath@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath
--000000000000fec5dd05d217e628-- From nobody Fri Dec 3 08:58:58 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietf.org Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D923A0C4C; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:58:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IESG Secretary To: "IETF-Announce" Cc: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.40.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <163855073599.20749.5626063582600029692@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 08:58:56 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Jsonpath] JSON Path (jsonpath) WG Virtual Meeting: 2022-01-18 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 16:58:56 -0000 The JSON Path (jsonpath) WG will hold a virtual interim meeting on 2022-01-18 from 11:00 to 13:00 Europe/Amsterdam (10:00 to 12:00 UTC). Agenda: Agenda to follow later. Information about remote participation: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?short=39034cb3-f4b8-4c58-911b-8822065381f5