►
From YouTube: IETF-JSONPATH-20221018-0800
Description
JSONPATH meeting session at IETF
2022/10/18 0800
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
A
B
A
B
C
Shall
I
just
thought
anyway
and
I'll
assume
that
costume
is
currently
working
on
his
one
of
your
permissions
and.
C
Okay,
I'll
do
the
usual
good
morning
good
morning,
just
in
the
nick
of
time.
C
Cool
I'll
do
the
usual
boilerplate
that
has
to
be
done
morning.
Folks.
This
is
the
recording
of
Jason
path,
working
group
interim
meeting
for
October
2022,
as
this
is
an
ietf
meeting,
the
usual
rules
of
the
ITF
with
regards
to
participation
and
the
likes
of
light
here.
So
please,
you
know
well
the
usual
administrava
note
takers
is
usually
me
after
the
fact
blue
sheets
are
automatic.
C
I'll
keep
an
eye
out
on
the
chat,
there's
only
a
handful
of
us,
so
it
shouldn't
be
a
problem
with
regards
to
a
gender
bashing.
Glenn
you
sent
out
an
email
stay.
Does
anybody
else
have
anything
they
want
to
add
to
the
discussion
for
today.
D
It
wasn't
really
a
input
to
the
agenda
so
much
as
just
input
to
the
meeting.
You
know
in
terms
of
draft
zero,
seven
and
all
right,
but
I'm,
not
I,
didn't
have
a
gender
items
really.
A
Okay,
well,
let
me
let
me
propose
an
agenda.
Then
I
propose
that
for
our
agenda
today
we
take
up
the
Iraq
draft.
First
I
think
we
can
dispose
of
that
fairly
quickly,
and
then
we
will
attempt
to
ascertain
what
issues
are
really
outstanding
on
on
the
main
draft
and
work
our
way
through
those.
Does
that
sound,
reasonable,
okay.
A
Okay,
so
let's
start
with
Iraq
Kirsten,
so
O2
has
been
posted
if
I'm
correct,
if
I,
if
I,
if
that
that's
correct
right,
yes.
E
So
Tim
made
the
the
changes
there.
That
became
obvious
from
the
Shepherd
review,
so
this
should
now
be
covered
and
I
think
we
are
ready
for
working
with
Glasgow.
A
It's
anybody
who
who
disagrees
thinks
we
should
who
I
think
we're
ready
for
a
working
group
last
call
as
well.
Does
anybody
disagree.
C
E
Yeah,
my
expectation
is
that
we
will
get
some
feedback
during
working
with
glass
Hall
in
particular,
because
we
will
shop
this
document
in
in
other
working
groups
as
well,
and
there
may
be
some
people
who
see
it
for
the
first
time
so
I
think
it's
pretty
normal
for
a
working
group
last
call
to
result
in
an
updated
document,
and
that
would
be
the
initial
three.
F
Great
yep
in
that
regard,
I
have
opened
a
new
issue
on
the
Json
schema
spec.
Currently,
Jason
schema
uses
ecma
262
for
regular
expressions
and
it's
been
kind
of
a
point
of
contention
with
people
in
various
languages
that
don't
support,
ECMO,
262,
fully
and
so
I've
I'm,
proposing
that
we
migrate
to
this
eventually
stating
that
it
is
a
a
work
in
progress
just
as
kind
of
a
as
a
proposal
for
possible
future
updates.
F
But
that's
just
one
Arena,
where
I
I
think
this
could
be
quite
useful
outside
of
Jason
path.
As.
C
F
Carson
I
I
tagged
you
in
that
issue
as
well.
A
A
All
right
so
with
respect
to
the
main
draft
I'm,
looking
at
I
I
clicked
this
morning
on
the
editor's
link
or
editor's
draft
button,
and
that
got
me
something
that
advertises
itself
as
being
published
on
16th
October.
D
Yeah,
it
should
be
zero.
Seven
on
the
document
name.
E
Yeah,
so
when
you
look
into
the
repository,
the
repository
doesn't
reflect
the
the
revisions
of
the
internet
draft.
This
always
has
the
latest
version
and
it
starts
with
the
main
branch
and
you
actually
can
select
other
branches
to
look
at
and
if
you
go
into
the
the
main
page
of
the
repository,
the
readme
has
a
link
that
compares
what
is
in
the
repository
with
what
has
been
the
latest
submission.
I.
Think
that's
the
the
third
entry
in
the
list
of
links.
E
Yes,
and
if
you
use
that
link
which
I
am
I'm
pasting,
you
will
see
that
there
is
a
little
bit
of
gratuitous
difference
between
latest
and
O7,
which
has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
Martin
Thomas's
template
uses
different
settings
for
formatting.
Then
the
the
internet
draft
repository
so
sometimes
there's
RCA
return.
Sometimes
there's
data
tracker
and
yeah
there's
some
work
to
be
done.
But
apart
from
that,
the
the
versions
are
identical,
but.
A
Sure,
okay,
so
O7
is
the
one
to
look
at
okay,
so
I
think
for
us
to
work
now.
We
need
to.
A
C
E
Yeah
I
think
the
the
thickest
issue
that
we
still
have
to
work
on
is
two
or
three,
and
that,
of
course
also
covers
154
and
194
and
yeah
they're,
all
labeled
extension.
A
E
A
Right
I
agree,
so
maybe
our
goal
for
this
meeting
should
be
to
clean
up
everything
that
is
not
marked
extension.
A
D
A
Right
I
believed
we
had
agreement
achievement
in
principle
on
260..
What
we
wanted
that
to
say,
and
what
was
the
other
one
252.
yeah.
D
D
A
Okay,
well
frankly,
in
the
in
the
you
know,
last
couple
of
weeks
before
this
meeting
I
have
been
I
think
we've
all
been
concerned
with
getting
the
the
that
big
pile
of
PR's
sorted
and
merged,
which
we
have
so
big.
Thank
you
to
to
Greg
and
Glenn
and
Carson
for
arranging.
For
that
to
happen,
pasta
is
not
obvious.
What
the
best
to
me,
what
the
best
use
of
our
time
here
is.
D
A
I
ask
you
to
to
to
suggest
an
order
there
Glenn.
D
Yeah,
let's,
let's
start
with
227,
because
I
think
that
is
probably
not
something
we
want
to
go
in
here.
Jason
path,
branding
proposal.
E
Where
we
suddenly
can
edit
during
record
last
call
so
I,
don't
think
it's
a
blocker
for
going
forward,
but
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
little
bit
of
FaceTime
to
see
where
we
are
with
us.
A
So
if
you
open
that
issue,
I
see
a
total
of
five
proposals
in
there.
F
But
if
you
look
at
them
iterate,
if
you
look
at
them
in
order,
they
kind
of
show
an
iterative
story,
I
think.
E
A
E
We
do
often
say
how
people
are
supposed
to
pronounce
something
so
that
this
to
me,
this
would
be
a
bit
of
an
logical
extension
to
that.
D
F
B
C
So
the
short
answer
is
so:
to
give
you
another
example,
the
quick
working
group
I
can
show
you
have
a
this,
so
this
is
their
logo.
The
only
place
that
they
use.
It
is
on
this
website
in
their
GitHub
repos
in
the
readme
and
they've
even
gone
to
the
extent
of
creating
merch
stickers
and
and
such
with
them
on.
None
of
this
my
understanding
is
ITF
sanctioned.
C
This
is
more
of
a
chairs
and
regular
participants
for
this
working
group
do
stuff
with
the
logo,
because
it's
an
ongoing
thing
I
think
one
thing
to
consider
is:
is
that
I
well
extensions
may
prove
otherwise
that
we
probably
won't
keep
the
the
Json
path
working
group
as
more
of
a
one
shot
where
we
intend
to
create
these
documents
and
revisit
whether
or
not
we
want
to
keep
it
going
so
really
the
only
place
that
we
would
use
such
a
logo
is,
you
know
in
would
be
for
implementations
to
use
it,
but
then
there's
a
a
question
mark
over
or
then
how
does
that
work
with
respects
to
intellectual
property
of
the
library.
F
Right
so
a
tangential
question
is:
where
is
that
website
managed
in
relation
to
the
ietf.
C
F
E
F
So
I
I
would
consider
this
to
be
the
same
thing.
It's
it's
not
a
standards
issue.
It's
a
community
issue
yeah
and
that
gets
back
to
my
original
argument
for
keeping
the
slack
server.
F
But
that's
a
different
discussion,
but
I
I
think
having
a
logo
is
a
good
step
toward
trying
to
build
a
community
around
Jason
path.
The
Jason
schema
Community
is
is
absolutely
fantastic.
We
have
a
bunch
of
people
asking
questions
in
multiple
places
and
like
stack
overflow
on
GitHub
in
slack
and
it's
it's.
F
It's
really
nice
to
be
able
to
to
interact
with
people
who
are
using
Json
schema
in
different
ways
so
that
we
know
how
to
continue
developing
the
spec
building
that
Community
around
Jason
path
would
give
us
those
those
same
things.
A
A
F
Personally,
I,
like
the
dots
it
can
be
keyboarded,
the
the
double
dot
is
a
thing
in
the
syntax,
the
J,
the
curly
braces
denote
Jason.
A
My
instinct
is
to
defer
this
issue,
we'll
have
lots
of
time
to
think
about
it,
while
the
IHF
processes
grind
along
and
we
can
do
better
than
any
of
these
things,
I
would
think.
A
C
F
D
D
D
D
Carson's
pointed
out
that
we
could
mention
something
in
the
spec
about
interoperability,
for
clients,
but
I'm,
not
I,
don't
think
that's
essential,
but
we
we
can
consider
it
as
an
editorial
change
later
nobody's
happy
with
that.
We
can
just
leave
it
open.
D
Well,
it's
just
the
the
only
remaining
action
you
see.
The
the
spec
is
currently
correct.
As
far
as
this
issue
is
concerned,
there's
nothing
to
do,
but
we
could
mention
that
applications
that
rely
on
the
exact
sequence
of
results
will
be
less
interoperable
than
ones
that
don't,
and
it's
just
a
reminder
to
pop
that
sentence
into
the
draft.
D
Yeah,
oh,
it's
not
myself,
then
at
least
we'll
issues
with
someone
assigned.
We
know
that
something's
going
to
happen.
260
and
252
are
assigned
to
me
and
they
are
in
flight.
So
unless
someone
wants
to
discussed
either
of
those
now
just
leave
them
for
PR
review
and
merge.
A
I
thought
we
had
sort
of
converged
so
I
would
be
inclined
to
to
let
that
go.
D
We
haven't
discussed
that
then
certainly
Greg
has
approved.
The
pr
includes
that
change,
I
think
well
I'd,
like
Carson
to
see
the
pr
before
I
merge
it,
but
we're
nearly
there.
A
D
I
think
we're
we're
coming
to
the
conclusion
that
we
didn't
want
to
go
into
non-singular
paths
inside
the
filter,
expressions
it's
a
bit
hard
to
discern
the
consensus,
because
it's
it's
quite
old
now.
D
We
were
kind
of
leaving
it
open
so
that
we
could.
You
know
just
check
that
we
were
okay
with
not
addressing
that
I.
Think
Carson
was
the
only
one
that
was
kind
of
slightly
in
favor,
of
a
existence
test
for
a
non-singular
person.
B
D
B
E
Right,
essentially,
what
what
we
are
doing
is
we're
restricting
the
syntax
of
the
paths
that
can
appear
in
existence,
tests
to
those
of
singular
paths
and
I
think
that
that
is
an
unnecessary
restriction.
E
On
the
other
hand,
that's
also
something
that
that
is
easily
retrofits.
We
don't
break
anything
existing
when
when
we
actually
allow
a
non-singular
paths
here
as
well.
So
it's
not
something
that
really
must
be
fixed.
From
my
point
of
view.
D
Okay,
I
think
they.
The
only
counter
argument
I
remember
against
doing
this
is
that
it
means
that
inside
a
filter
expression,
some
places
where
paths
are
permissible
can
can
only
be
singular
and
other
ones
can
be
non-singular.
So
there's
a
slight
kind
of
memory
issue
for
users
there.
They
have
to
remember
which
one's
which,
but
you
know
obviously.
D
D
Well,
if
you
have
a
path-
and
you
compare
it
to
a
literal,
for
example,
so
a
path-
that's
meant
to
identify
a
string
and
you
compare
it
to
string
literal.
That's
got
to
be
a
singular
path,
whereas,
if
you
have
with
this
issue,
if
you
have
a
path
in
an
exist
expression
that
doesn't
have
to
be
a
singular
path
right.
A
D
Yeah,
it
would
require
users
to
be
aware
of
it.
You
see,
they
probably
won't
read
the
spec.
A
B
A
That
doesn't
mean
it
shouldn't
say
so
so
I
I
would
I
have
no
opinion
at
all
as
to
which
way
to
go.
But
I
think
that
if
there
is
such
a
difference
we
should
call
it
explicitly
so
people
won't,
you
know,
think
we're
fooling
them
or
something
like
that.
So
the
actual
spec
language
should
explicitly
point
out
that
it
has
to
be
singular
in
this
place
and
not
necessarily
in
the
other.
B
E
So
just
as
a
reminder,
that
means
we
cannot
ask
questions
like.
Is
there
any
Foo
in
there
that
has
a
bar
in
it,
because
we
don't
have
a
descendant
selector
available,
a
descendant
segment
available,
new
terminology.
E
Well,
it's
not
easy
to
look
up
because
it
requires
that
the
implementation
has
something
like
an
existence
check
in
the
first
place,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
did
you
just
add
one
item
to
to
Augustus
list
and
and
get
it
that
way
or.
A
A
I
mean
clearly,
there
are
some
that
I'm,
you
know
at
sign:
dot
ID
equals
to.
D
Now,
I'm
pretty
sure
it's
not
covered
okay,
I'll
take
an
action
to
add
something
to
the
comparison
project
to
test
that.
F
Glenn,
are
you,
are
you
contributor
on
there?
Do
you
have
the
ability
to
merge
PRS
or
are
we
still
reliant
on
the
owner
to.
D
Do
this
hpos,
but
I
don't
have
the
setup
to
do
a
full
test
locally,
so
I
kind
of
depend
upon
Kristoff
to
finish
things
off
for
me,
but
he's
pretty
responsive
when
I
put
things
up,
so
it
should
be
okay.
A
So
I
think
our
takeaway
is
that
our
consensus
is
that
we
like
this,
there's
nobody
who's
really
against
having
non-singular
expression
here,
assuming
that
it's
not
an
egregious
stepping
away
from
what's
what's
currently
supported
in
the
field.
D
D
B
D
Magic,
how
about
160.
B
C
Noting
that
it
f-115
is
about
three
weeks
time
and
we
can't
look
at
either
side
of
it
by
a
week
or
two,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
is
it
worth
us
doing
a
meeting
at
the
end
of
November
I'm
hesitant
to
go
into
December,
because
I
know
that
you
know
in
the
lead
up
to
Christmas
end
of
the
year?
Etc
people
are
generally
less
available.
A
So
in
November
we
could
look
at
trying
to
meet
the
week
of
November
21st
Monday
21st.
B
E
E
Yeah,
are
we
trying
to
get
craft
out
before
the
115
deadline?
Next.
A
Week,
I,
don't
know
that
would
be
lovely,
but
it
seems
ambitious
at
this
point.
B
D
A
Well,
I
would
hope
you
know
I
mean
I,
think
we
all
know
more
or
less
what
we're
going
to
get
from
from
Carson
here.
So
you
know
we
could
maybe
just
finish
it
up
with
email
and
and
GitHub
issues
and
have
something
pretty
well
finished
by
November
20th
or
whenever
it
was
that
we
said
and.
D
D
E
F
Are
we
do
we
have
a
I
guess,
a
verbal
consensus
that
the
function
syntax
is
the
direction
we
want
to
go
with
this.
B
B
B
B
F
E
A
A
I
guess
I
should
just
say
for
the
record
that
you
know
our
our
Horizon
on
this
work
is
not
infinite.
A
Yes,
at
some
point,
speaking
under
my
co-chair
hat
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
our
patients-
you
know
that
if
we
don't
do
work
on
this,
that
means
we
don't
care
enough
about
it.
So.
D
Yeah
Carson:
will
you
have
enough
Cycles
in
the
next
week
or
two
to
review
pull
requests?
Yes
right,
Greg
same
same
for
you.
B
A
Likewise,
in
fact,
yeah,
let
me
just
emphasize
that
point.
You
know
that
was
a
pretty
big,
merge
and
I
would
encourage
everybody
to
you
know
read
this
read
the
thing
at
the
end
and
make
sure
nothing
crept
in.
B
A
D
Just
just
had
to
remove
one
ID
that
wasn't
needed
and
it
went
away,
I
think
there's
a
collision
between
a
a
curtained
ID
and
a
generated
ID
and
removing
the
code
ID,
which
wasn't
used
to
remove
the
Collision
there's
a
kind
of
tooling
issue
there.
But
I
don't
want
to
go
near
that
for
the
moment.
I.
F
Think
I
I
think
I
remembered
that
if
we
were
I
think
we
should
check
to
make
sure
that
all
the
links
lead
to
where
we
want
them
to
lead.
F
B
D
A
F
C
B
F
B
F
B
F
That
worked,
are
they
open?
Are
they
ietf
only
what
what
kind
of.
C
Things
there
is
no
membership
to
the
ietf,
so
there's
three
meetings
a
year
and
now
that
we're
having
physical
meetings
there's
usually
one
in
Europe
one
in
Asia,
one
in
North
America.
C
C
B
C
Yes,
Yes
actually,
and
you
can
just
start
at
ietf.org,
there's
some
efforts
at
the
moment
to
write
some
some
documentation
to
help
people
talk
to
their
bosses,
about
the
benefits
of
attending
the
ITF
and
an
explanation
of
it,
the
the
costs
and
all
the
rest
of
it.
C
But
you
you
work
for
Microsoft,
don't
you.
C
B
C
Was
about
to
say,
because
if
you
were
still
at
Microsoft
I
thought
you
were
at
one
point
that
they
have
many.
If
there's
many
attendees
and
it
might
have
been
easier
to
hook
you
up
with
a
colleague
that
would
have
known
the
processes.
F
I
imagine
I,
imagine
postman's,
probably
familiar
with
it
as
well.
Okay,
yeah
and
and
Dennis
Miller
is
actually
a
member
of
very
active
in
ietf
and
also
active
in
Json
schema.
So
I
can
tack
him
up
if
necessary,.
C
A
Yeah,
it
may
be
the
case
that
when
we
go
to
ietf
last
call
that
if
a
really
you
know
substantial
discussion
breaks
out,
we
may
decide
that
we,
you
know,
owe
the
community
and
I
and
a
presence
at
some
future
ITF.
So
that
could
happen.