IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-01.txt

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 21 March 2012 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0498321F84FC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.710, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXvhPFu3n24Z for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1463021F84D9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2012 13:00:21 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 21 Mar 2012 14:00:21 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18OWhM9yAUOArOx96H1X4XsbOyu4N5HjqVQO+D8zv FCEOjiV4fFqxul
Message-ID: <4F69D0CD.2090608@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:59:57 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca>
References: <20120309212231.16366.52439.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F5E70BE.9070308@cloudmark.com> <1331652710.3301.18.camel@neutron> <4F691080.7020606@cloudmark.com> <1332308116.2171.30.camel@neutron> <4F697917.3090105@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4F697917.3090105@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-01.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:00:24 -0000

On 2012-03-21 07:45, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-03-21 06:35, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
>> As I stated previously, if there's consensus on a more verbose patch
>> operation object format, I will defer. Any opinions from other members
>> of the working group?
>> ...
>
> Please leave it the way it is.

...by which I mean the syntax. I *do* agree that we need to tune the 
language so it defines what needs to happen when the pointer identifies 
a non-existing piece of the referenced document (but we can do this by 
tuning the language in the Patch spec).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email