Re: [emergency-cap] CAP Issue 23 - Specify JSON serialization

[Jacob Westfall <jake@jpw.biz>]

Hi,
	Thanks to everyone who has weighed in so far regarding issue 23 - JSON.  If there are others with comments, please make sure you submit them before the meeting on Monday.

	My own two cents on the discussion so far.  Regarding the concerns about serializations of CAP other than XML being valid.  ASN.1 is an entirely valid method for exchanging CAP messages, and has been for years.  It just so happens that its uptake has been extremely low, and there have been no impacts on implementers because of this, but it still doesn't negate the fact that CAP messages come in two flavours.  So if the justification that XML must be the only way to exchange CAP messages is used to reject issue 23, then I would certainly move that we must apply the same logic and remove ASN.1 as well.

	If issue 23 is accepted, I do not believe that CAP JSON is thereby fait accompli.  The OASIS process would still have to be followed with committee drafts, comment periods, rounds of voting, etc.  If during the drafting process any showstoppers with JSON arise, or there is overwhelming negative comments from the CAP community, then CAP JSON would not move forward.  I support the issue because JSON has overtaken XML, for good or bad, and believe the effort should be made to seriously consider its use.  A draft spec would address some of the important concerns that have been raised such as encoding, transformation, digital signatures, etc and without which, a well informed decision really can't be made.  If it ends up being rejected, it would at least provide those of us who get regular questions about CAP and JSON, the ability to point to some valid reasons why JSON isn't available, rather than the shrugs and contradictions we have to offer now.