Using JSON for configuration is just the whole situation of using XML for data exchange redux. One of the major points for JSON over XML for data exchange was that it was so much better because it was optimized for data, not markup. Why are we ignoring this argument now that JSON is on the other side? JSON is used for configuration because it's ubiquitous, not because it fits the problem domain well. Let's just choose a more appropriate format.
Choosing the most common set of rules for INI files (what is proposed by Wikipedia[1] is probably sufficient) would serve us MUCH better than coaxing a data interchange format into that role.
(1) lots of general tooling support, in particular you get at least decent editor support for your config file, and
(2) you can autogenerate the code needed to read your configuration into structured data without having to do any unnecessary duplication of "key names" (tags) as you have to with e.g. INI or JSON. You also get the data sturctures themselves for "free" (based on the XSD).
Alright, it's not the end of the world to not have these things, but they're both very nice to have.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_data_type [1] I should note that support for ADTs in XSD is sometimes sketchy in the various code generators, but at least the XSD specification supports it. (It could also be argued that XSD supports something even more general... which it probably shouldn't since ADTs basically cover the whole data structure space unless you go to higher kinds, inheritance and such.)
we just need JSON, but with a couple things fixed up to make it nicer to use for configuration files.