[GeoJSON] Future plans for GeoJSON

[Howard Butler]

> On 26.04.13 14:34, christopher.schmidt at nokia.com wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think there is any significant benefit I can imagine from submitting
>> GeoJSON as IETF RFC.

A benefit would be that the specification's affiliation with a standards body would be cemented, and the specification would have a body to move forward with when the rest of us individual authors don't give a shit anymore (See GeoTIFF, et. al.). It also gives other folks authoritative cover to build upon GeoJSON in their standards efforts. Some people do indeed need these things, even if the practical aspects of software interoperability don't really have to acknowledge them.

>> I see no evidence that the reason this isn't being done is due to lack of
>> IETF status.
> 
> Evidence is a rare beast in that arena I presume. I for one prefer that all free and open tools - as well as vendor products - do use the combination of a) best and most accesible, and b) vivid and at the same time reliable (meaning here stable) specifications and procedures available to offer interoperable services.
> 
> I further imagine, that you simply don't see formal standards out in the wild clearly referencing GeoJSON, as you can't (to my knowledge) cite a master thesis as normative reference in a ph.d. thesis (just trying to provide an analogy, not saying anything about the quality of geojson!).
> 
> By the way, one could easily state geojson.org as afiliation (as has been done with json.org in the JSON RFC by Mr. Crockford) to document the real origin of the work.
> 
> 
> But again what strikes me most, is the perceived mismatch between the potential (above described) benefits on one side and the small steps that would be needed to achieve them on the other side.

I think an IETF submission is a nice-to-have rather than a have-to-have for the GeoJSON community. IIRC, at the time there was some discussion about bringing it forward, and it's clear that the IETF process and format inspired the specification document itself (this came from Sean, IIRC).  I personally see no problem with it, but I also don't have the bandwidth to make it happen. Someone with a strong desire and time to shepherd it through the process would need to do that. It sounds like you have a strong desire to do so...

Howard