JSON Schema standardization: IETF is going nowhere, let's move it to OASIS or W3C

[Roger Costello]

Hi Folks,

17 months ago I asked on this list about the status of JSON Schema standardization. I was told (paraphrasing): "Oh, it's coming along, be patient."

4 months ago Jared Hirsch asked on this list about the status of JSON Schema standardization. He was told (paraphrasing), "Oh, it's coming along, be patient."

The JSON Schema specification has not moved in three years even though JSON is one of the most popular data formats on the planet.

Hmm, time's up don't you think?

If we can't kick-start the IETF process, then it's time to switch to another standards organization.

I propose that we do some inquiries with OASIS and the W3C to see about getting one of them to host the standardization of JSON Schema.

Thoughts?

/Roger

[Andrew Newton]

Are there any more changes planned? Will another draft (or set of
drafts) be created?

-andy

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "JSON Schema" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to json-schema...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Roger Costello]

Hello Andy,

There are a handful of very small, backward-compatible changes for v5:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/json-schema/FSJmct8crXk

Will there be another draft? Well, for the last three years there's been no movement on v4.

I believe it's time to shift to a standards organization that is willing to move JSON Schema aggressively through the standards process.

/Roger

[Andrew Newton]

Well, there is no working group in the IETF that has formally accepted
this draft, nor has it been put forward to the IETF in any other
manner other than publishing it as a draft (which anybody can do). The
first step would be to get v5 out, then approach the IETF again. For
all they know, the work has stalled.

-andy

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Roger Costello

[Roger Costello]

Hello Andy,

Yikes! That's what I was afraid of. Essentially then, IETF is simply acting as a gracious host and allowing the v4 documents to be posted on their web site. But as far as JSON Schema being entered in and part of the IETF standardization process, well, that ain't happening. I believe that some attempts have been made to enter it into the IETF standardization process but have not succeeded. /Roger

[Matt Palmer]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:59:27AM -0700, Roger Costello wrote:
> Hello Andy,
>
> Yikes! That's what I was afraid of. Essentially then, IETF is simply acting
> as a gracious host and allowing the v4 documents to be posted on their web
> site. But as far as JSON Schema being entered in and part of the IETF
> standardization process, well, that ain't happening. I believe that some
> attempts have been made to enter it into the IETF standardization process
> but have not succeeded. /Roger

Posting a draft *is* entering it into the IETF standardization process.
Sure, most RFCs (not just "standards") are produced by a working group, but
a WG doesn't *have* to be formed in order to produce an RFC (even a
standards-track RFC).

The Tao of IETF (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html), particularly section 6,
"RFCs and Internet-Drafts" (http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#rfcs.ids) might be
useful reading for everyone who wants to be involved in, or make comment on,
the process of getting JSON Schema published as some sort of "standard".

- Matt

--
Imagine an orkplace where you were the only non executive: Make them all
CEO. Give them all at least one Masters degree and/or a PhD, and the ego
trip that comes with that. Now double it. That's education.
-- GB, in the Monastery

[Roger Costello]

Thanks Matt, good clarification on the IETF process. So do you understand why JSON Schema appears to be stalled at v4 with no apparent path to becoming a standard?  /Roger

[Matt Palmer]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 03:20:44PM -0700, Roger Costello wrote:
> Thanks Matt, good clarification on the IETF process. So do you understand
> why JSON Schema appears to be stalled at v4 with no apparent path to
> becoming a standard? /Roger

Well, the main problem is that the previous submitted drafts have expired.
That means that it was uploaded more than six months ago, and that nobody
has done anything towards progressing it to publishing (asking an Area
Director, either independently or through a Working Group (WG)).

You can see what the documents and their status from an active WG look like
in the IETF data tracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/documents/.
Compare that to the JSON Schema-related documents:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=JSON+schema&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&olddrafts=on

Searching for "IETF" in the group archives shows there's been plenty of
discussion around what to do next, but no real movement. The best summary
is probably
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/json-schema/DIRRlx2w_7U/0wV1pVAcYFQJ, which
is:

> the next steps are the v5 draft as an I-D, and making some noise about it
> on the JSON Working Group list.

Specifically, "the v5 draft as an I-D" bit is what needs to happen next.
The archives show mention of a few different people who've said something
along the lines of, "I'll do it!", but nothing's actually come from any of
them, AFAICT. That's not a criticism of any of them (hell, the number of
things I've committed but haven't done is epic). Threads of particular
note:

* https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/json-schema/IETF/json-schema/jF8btzOAl5k/XWh4dtUeb5IJ
(which references https://github.com/json-schema/json-schema/issues/167)
* https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/json-schema/IETF/json-schema/NCxletWhwnU/PDv50CYfFQAJ
* https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/json-schema/IETF/json-schema/qDM0l8spSmg/xZX8UTH-leUJ

The "making some noise about it" bit isn't going to involve the JSON WG
(which has wound down, and whose charter (at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/json/charter/) never covered this anyway --
although yes, charters can change). The jsonbis WG (charter at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonbis/charter/) really isn't up for this,
either. The RFC can go forward as an individual submission, or the appsawg
WG (charter at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/charter/) would fit
fairly well, and has JSON-related history (JSON Patch, JSON Pointer, and
JSON Merge Patch all went through appsawg).

My recommendation for anyone (heck, even *several* *competing* anyones, if
you like) who wants to take on the work of getting this standardised is:

1. Rummage around and find the "best" pre-v5 draft you can.

2. Post it (or, rather, a link to it) to the list and say "this is going in
as an Internet Draft (I-D) in 14 days unless anyone has anything to add".
Don't rely on people to actively *agree* to publishing; assume that the
lurkers support you in silence. People who disagree will have the
necessary energy to let you know.

3. Incorporate consensus-approved[1] changes within a reasonable timeframe,
and whenever the doc has no outstanding changes and activity seems to
have died down, goto step 2.

4. When an instance of step 2 doesn't get a flurry of further activity,
carry out your threat and publish the I-D. You don't need to be anyone
special to publish an I-D, just go to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/ and follow the bouncing ball.

5. Take the I-D to the appsawg and see what they say. Follow their advice.

Note there's no mention there of "form a team of editors", "get on the
json-schema Github group", or anything like that. That's all good stuff,
but they're not *necessary*, and the current problem of getting the core
spec published as an RFC seems to be "someone to do the hard work", not
anything else.

- Matt

[1] In case anyone's unclear, "consensus" doesn't mean "everyone agrees", it
means "nobody disagrees enough to fall on their sword over it". Falling
on one's sword, on the Internet, is a matter of proposing alternate
language that itself gains consensus, and thus supercedes the original.
Unproductive kibbitzers can get in the bin.

--
There's a term for those who fantasize that the world works in precisely the
way that produces maximum convenience for them, despite years of evidence to
the contrary. The term is "Morons".
-- Greg Andrews, in the Monastery

[Federico Capoano]

I don't think the problem lies with the IETF, really.

What I've seen in the last 6 months is a lack of coordination from a core-group of people. I understand that who worked on the previous specifications may be busy with other concerns, so what we should really do is to understand what's the best way to advance the work on JSON-Schema: who owns the domain, who worked on the previous specs? Who ultimately decides which proposals are accepted? Are these people willing to open up the process to more contributors? If yes at which terms?

I understand that working on a standard is a matter of consensus, but if ones sends a proposal for v5 it would be good to know the opinion of key people who have worked on previous specifications before proceeding.

Federico

[pierre....@osswave.com]

I think we need to ahead with the standardization process using existing version 0.4 (we can upgrade later).

I'm willing to help on this btu need some guidance as to how we can proceed.

Pierre

[Austin Wright]

"The IETF" is essentially just the group of people consisting of anyone who posts to IETF mailing lists.

If you don't need the media-type IANA registered, and you only need something to validate JSON, then it's perfectly fine to rely on JSON Schema implementations being a group of people who develop numerous, interoperable libraries through GitHub.

Can you elaborate (maybe again, if you already have) a bit on which parts you need standardization for? e.g. normatively referencing JSON Schema from another document?

[Matt Palmer]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 01:08:07PM -0700, pierre....@osswave.com wrote:
> I'm willing to help on this btu need some guidance as to how we can proceed.

I thought I was fairly clear on how to proceed in
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/json-schema/ih8Xqr-2c24/QTrz0oGrBQAJ, but
let me reiterate: the blocker, at the moment, is getting a document to take
to the IETF. Fix *that* first.

- Matt

--
If only more employers realized that people join companies, but leave
bosses. A boss should be an insulator, not a conductor or an amplifier.
-- Geoff Kinnel, in the Monastery

[Federico Capoano]

Hi matt,

to me that is clear. What is not clear is who is leading the effort, where is the repository of the draft documents and what are the priorities.
Is this information available?

Best regards
Federico Capoano

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "JSON Schema" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/json-schema/ih8Xqr-2c24/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to json-schema...@googlegroups.com.

[Matt Palmer]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 08:30:10AM +0000, Federico Capoano wrote:
> to me that is clear. What is not clear is who is leading the effort, where
> is the repository of the draft documents and what are the priorities.
> Is this information available?

Yes, it's all in the list archives. From my reading, it's "nobody",
"github", and "nothing". If you take my advice, the answers will be, "you",
"wherever you choose", and "getting an I-D submitted".

- Matt

--
You have a 16-bit quantity, but 5 bits of it are here and 2 bits of it are
there... and 2 bits of it are back here and 3 bits of it are up there. The
C code to extract useful data had so many >> and << operators in it that it
looked like the C++ version of "hello world". -- Matt Roberds, ASR

[Austin Wright]

All current work is being organized through https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec

The four of us working on that repository are all active.

The problems we're running into are previous editors and owners who are MIA, which complicates publication. But we're looking to get it done.

Feel free to file issues to that repository.

Austin.

[Federico Capoano]

Hi Austin,

your answer is the type of answer I was looking forward to read.

Thank you very much.

One last question, what happens to the v5 proposals that are present here?

https://github.com/json-schema/json-schema/wiki

Federico

[relequ...@gmail.com]

Perosnally I think telling people to put proposals on the wiki is a terrible idea. Issues are suffeciant!

See, this is the sort of thing that needs organising. I feel the project needs a set and agreed upon set of prodecures. There was some sort of prodecure document left over from someone ages ago, but I queried it, and the current owners of the project (who are also now MIA), said (paraphrasing), "oh, that's old, we never really did that. I'll delete it now."

I want to help, but there just isn't suffeciant structure, and my attempt to create a structure was shot down or met with radio silence. I was lead to believe this was because draft 4 was being converted to a proper spec behind closed doors by people who knew what they were doing. That was nearly a year ago now, which is poor. The lack of seeming effort by some folks who are supposed to be owners of this project, has a serious negative impact on my motivation, to the point where I don't know if I even have the time to figure out where to start with this mess. /rant

[Federico Capoano]

Everything is more clear now, it sounds just like how I suspected.

I'm available to migrate the proposals that I'm interested in.

What's the right way to send proposals for the v5 spec? Creating an issue on https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec?

Shall we agree on some sort of procedure? Austin, what's your view?

Federico

[Austin Wright]

Yeah, an issue there is sufficient to get my attention, I'll tag it and follow up with whatever questions are necessary.

Just keep in mind, the priority right now is fixing language in the draft without changing any behavior, so that proposals for new functionality, or changes in functionality, can all be done in terms of correct language and up-to-date references.

Austin.

[Federico Capoano]

I was just reading here:

https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/wiki

So does this means that proposals for new features will go in draft 6?
If yes, is it still ok for us to send them now?

Federico

[Austin Wright]

Yeah, just file an issue.

Austin.