We should be defining requirements that lead to interoperable implementations.
If we specify both encodings, but allow both the DB and the master device to implement only one, there will be instances of master device/database pairs that won't interoperate. In my opinion, we should standardize on a single encoding. Failing that, we should require the DB to implement both and allow the master device to choose one. This will achieve our goal of interoperable implementations. -Pete Don Joslyn wrote: > Hi Ben, > > That was my original suggestion, and I still think it makes the most > sense. > > Thanks for supporting the proposal. > > Don > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Benjamin A. Rolfe > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > > Someone suggested that PAWS define both, and let the vendors decide > which ones to implement. > That makes the most sense for both DB and device vendors. Markets > will probably drive DB vendors to do both. Device vendors will do what > fits the market segment they're after. Why over-constrain (or argue > when natural selection will take care of it for us?). > B > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > > Now I can't see anymore any willingness to agree on one or the other > encoding. > > To prevent endless discussions on this topic I'd suggest we move > forward with supporting both in the DB and either one in the master device. > > Any objections? > > > > Gabor > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of ext Das, Subir > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 2:50 PM > To: Don Joslyn; Vincent Chen; Weixinpeng > Cc: [email protected]; Manikkoth Sajeev > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > > We have a half a dozen or more TVDB radio vendors that use/prefer JSON > and we will vote for JSON if we had to pick one. > > Also I will copy the following two important points: > > > > * Simple-to-use libraries exist for all major languages/platforms > * Don't need a tool chain to work with the data, as is typically > needed > for XML > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Don Joslyn > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 4:54 PM > To: Vincent Chen; Weixinpeng > Cc: [email protected]; Manikkoth Sajeev > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > > Please see my comments below... > > Thanks, > > Don > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Vincent Chen > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 2:56 PM > To: Weixinpeng > Cc: [email protected]; Manikkoth Sajeev > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > > * One of our goals is to strive to lower the cost and complexity > for device manufacturers. This lowers the barrier for building a > robust ecosystem. > > [DJ - The "cost" and complexity of using XML has not been an issue for > the half dozen TVBD vendors that have already used XML. Maybe we need > to better define "cost"?] > > * To reduce complexity and cost for device makers, supporting 1 > encoding is better than both, as Brian points out. WiFi access points > that "just work" anywhere in the world serves as a good model. > > [DJ - I proposed that the databases support both XML and JSON, devices > only need to support one to talk to the database. Our current database > supports XML and JSON, but if I'm forced to pick only one, then I will > vote for XML because it's the one that we currently use on all > embedded devices.] > > * There's a trend for APIs on the web towards JSON (Twitter, > FourSquare, Facebook, Google, etc.). One of the major reasons is that > developers (client-side) prefer it for its simplicity: > > * Representation closely matches most data models (nested lists > and > maps) * Simple-to-use libraries exist for all major > languages/platforms > * Don't need a tool chain to work with the data, as is typically > needed > for XML. > > Apparently, the efficiency gains of JSON also matter to the > scalability of serving systems. > > > > [DJ - I can't argue against these listed pros for JSON, especially > when you're dealing with a lot of data (like Twitter, FourSquare, > Facebook and Google does). But I'm assuming that PAWS messages will > not be exchanged nearly as often as the applications mentioned above. > But again, I know JSON is more efficient, can't argue with that.] > > * At the end of the day, it's the data model that matters, rather > than the encoding. We (Google) are actually neutral on XML vs JSON, as > long as we're clear on what device makers want. It would be good to > get feedback from device makers (especially of embedded devices) > regarding experiences supporting XML vs JSON. > > > > Don, can you elaborate on the types of devices that already support XML? > > > > [DJ - We currently support half a dozen TVDB radio vendors (embedded > devices) using XML, non using JSON. XML has not been a burden, and the > amount of data that needs to be exchanged between device and database > is not that much or exchanged that often.] > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Weixinpeng <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Considering of the design of database discovery protocol, the LoST > protocol may be used and LoST is based on XML, so I think XML may be > preferred. > > > > --Xinpeng Wei > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Rosen, Brian > > > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:26 PM > > To: Manikkoth Sajeev; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > > I don't really care whether we use json or xml as a matter of protocol > design or implementation, but I am a big fan of reusing standards > rather than defining new ones, and I would not want to see the choice > of json mean we then decide to roll our own versus using existing > standards based on the idea there is no json representation of an > existing standard. So, if choosing json means folks feel free to > ignore existing xml based standards such as xCard and LoST, then I > would not want to use json. > > > > I would prefer to not have "both", because of interoperability > complications. If there is rough consensus for both, then I would > assert that all servers have to implement both and the client can > implement either. > > > > There are json validators, so I don't think that is a big deal. > > > > My experience in protocol design on the Internet is that decisions > made solely or even largely because of compactness advantages rarely > are good choices. If you like json because it is smaller, then I > believe you need a much better reason. Binary doesn't work for me, at > all. I have been involved in big binary vs text wars in protocol > design. Text wins, binary loses, in my opinion. > > > > Brian <as individual> > > > > From: Manikkoth Sajeev <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Manikkoth Sajeev <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:37:38 -0400 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Rosen, Brian" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > > Hi, > > > > Can it not be both JSON and XML supported? I would vote for that. > Future implementations may prefer XML as it is generic, omni present, > easy to understand and validate. For compactness may be a binary xml > option can also work. JSON I think will necessitate implementation to > be native Java and may not be as friendly with other implementation languages. > > > > Best Regards, > > Sajeev Manikkoth > Mobile: +918792292002 <tel:%2B918792292002> > Email: [email protected] > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mksajeev > > > > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: > [email protected] Sent: Friday, 17 August 2012, 4:55 Subject: Re: [paws] > XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > > We have not heard any objections for using JSON encoding instead of XML. > Therefore, let's go for JSON, and close this thread. > > - Gabor > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of ext Rosen, Brian > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:14 PM > To: 'Vincent Chen'; 'Peter Stanforth' > Cc: '[email protected]' > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > json is okay with me. > I'd prefer an ISO time stamp rather than a time in seconds since epoch. > It's very easy to parse, and its simpler to use and debug. Don't care > a whole lot about that > > Brian <as individual> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vincent Chen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 06:04 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: Peter Stanforth > Cc: Rosen, Brian; Teco Boot; Benjamin A.Rolfe; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal > > XML vs JSON > > Between XML and JSON, JSON messages are more compact and easier to > process (parsing, synthesis). As clarification, JSON does not require > JavaScript or a Browser. It is a text-based representation of data > that is language independent, yet well-matched to all major languages. > JSON- handling libraries exist for numerous languages (see of > http://json.org/) and seem to be reasonably light weight. > > Timestamps > > As for timestamp specifications, should we consider just using seconds > since the UNIX Epoch (1970-01-01T00:00:00Z)? This would eliminate the > need for datetime-string parsing on devices, assuming devices already > have native libraries that provide time in this format. Is that a > valid assumption? Of course, this is less human-readable.... > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Peter Stanforth > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Whenever we built mobile devices we never dealt with IETF, in our > sensor days even an IP stack was a challenge,so I would defer to the > device guys on that one. > > On MonAug/13/12 Mon Aug 13, 9:30 AM, "Rosen, Brian" > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Our experience in the IETF over many years is that economizing >> message size and compromising utility and security in search of >> efficiency of implementation on small devices is a poor trade off. I >> am not advocating being wasteful of resources, but I don't think we >> should seriously consider the overhead of XML or json to be significant. >> >> Assuming a json library can be loaded on a small device is reasonable. >> >> Brian (as individual) >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Stanforth [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 07:13 AM Eastern Standard Time >> To: Teco Boot; Benjamin A.Rolfe >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [paws] XML schema versus JSON, vCard & iCal >> >> Not all masters run over the core network. Some of the Use cases have >> a master talking to another OTA We should not assume that all Masters >> are attached to utility power so we should be sympathetic to >> processing energy use also. >> >> On SatAug/11/12 Sat Aug 11, 5:30 AM, "Teco Boot" > <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> >>> Op 10 aug. 2012, om 18:10 heeft Benjamin A. Rolfe het volgende >>> geschreven: >>> >>>> Compactness of messages is important, but it is also important (to >>>> me at least) to be realizable in an implementation with limited >>>> resources, such as embedded devices in what are now popularly >>>> called "M2M" applications. A lot of these devices could use IP all >>>> the end to end, but may have a very compact, simple stack and >>>> applications (i.e. no browser). Is JSON typically implemented when >>>> there is no browser? Would it be hard to do in a resource >>>> constrained device (i.e. where we talk about memory size in Kilo-bytes >>>> still). >>> >>> In use cases and requirements document, there are no requirements >>> for protocol performance. I guess OS/IP/TCP/TLS code size supersedes >>> needs for JSON or XML. >>> >>> Same for timing: TCP/TLS connection setup will take more than the >>> PAWS message exchange, I think. This may be of importance when using >>> satcom links. >>> >>> Because PAWS runs between master and database, over core network, >>> performance is not our primary concern. But as always, it is good to >>> keep an eye on efficiency. >>> >>> Teco >>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Ben >>>> >>>> >>>>> We had a discussion on XML vs. JSON. I prefer the one with most >>>>> compact messages. >>>>> >>>>> On vCard and JSON: what is the status of "A JavaScript Object >>>>> Notation (JSON) Representation for vCard"? >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhat-vcarddav-json-00 >>>>> >>>>> On valid times: can we use same format as certificates? They have >>>>> similar simple requirements: valid notBefore& notAfter. >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3280#section-4.1.2.5 >>>>> >>>>> Teco _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
