Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419)
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 21 July 2015 14:25 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC071B2E55 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-3lRTwB2J5x for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x244.google.com (mail-ie0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 169641A886E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ietj16 with SMTP id j16so12102507iet.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8xcGMsKg7yEzExjz2itE4yAjyyMog37FLpJ28WQlp4M=; b=fI4r0leSNWdRf1n9n0e7MQJefz8Xa/oxky4vK073quUHWI/l+HsmviXdcdJ9gFSe7/ FAreLFyo7OQmqeuCzzavQm8T17e2XBfdSgYq+VRCjJzhllPgCkxqkLSczWGXj0Yk5Psh kCoLF8N8iEZIjuApz3DmLXUsgMGSTuq3Baf1qn5RpEvpIj9XLBH1yeiaipoTYlyjnwSc uFAYdDiSipPVprlCIKwgtS8aanAUQO/49uh+1fi+h/UvpjntmWqFvIgL6pwEexhVdcyQ muHSguKPStFcOuJiw33aUfUUjmuY0kWYUYum2RYbgWb0PNIsqT/BeCuSsS4t7Wff/gCq s/YA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.1.79 with SMTP id 15mr25427345igk.68.1437488750577; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.133.95 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <02FCD555-BC2F-48DB-8D7D-C494FCAC202D@mnot.net>
References: <20150717193624.EF72218046E@rfc-editor.org> <02FCD555-BC2F-48DB-8D7D-C494FCAC202D@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:25:50 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wnEpnwB_3p3Tc2eacQO3y4CWAqg
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVAoUsxaYBMvVN_zVPW5FgZADAfFg3TbbHtgmU6VQXCVcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/7_t8Nlb-w0F5FY5CqxRZnNRBz28>
Cc: Paul Bryan <pbryan@anode.ca>, brettz9@yaho.com, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:25:52 -0000
> This seems reasonable to me, although it does seem more like a text > improvement than a strict errata - Barry, any thoughts? Was it an error in the spec that the example makes a patch that doesn't actually make any change to the JSON? If that was a mistake, then this report (or some edited version of it) should be "verified". If that was intentional, showing an example of a valid patch that makes no changes, then this report should be "rejected". In either case... > I've raised an issue here: > https://github.com/json-patch/json-patch-tests/issues/22 > … as that's where most of the JSON Patch implementer community > pays attention. ...that's a good thing to do, as that's the right place to record comments about the clarity of the document, which might be considered if we ever do another version. Barry >> On 17 Jul 2015, at 9:36 pm, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6902, >> "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6902&eid=4419 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Brett Zamir <brettz9@yaho.com> >> >> Section: A.14 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> An example target JSON document: >> >> { >> "/": 9, >> "~1": 10 >> } >> >> A JSON Patch document: >> >> [ >> {"op": "test", "path": "/~01", "value": 10} >> ] >> >> The resulting JSON document: >> >> { >> "/": 9, >> "~1": 10 >> } >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> Proper JSON Pointer escaping should occur when resolving >> paths for application to the target document. >> >> An example target JSON document: >> >> { >> "/": 9, >> "~1": 10 >> } >> >> A JSON Patch document: >> >> [ >> {"op": "add", "path": "/~01", "value": 11} >> ] >> >> The resulting JSON document: >> >> { >> "/": 9, >> "~1": 11 >> } >> >> Notes >> ----- >> At http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902#appendix-A.14 , I have a few issues: >> >> 1. Even though JSON Pointer is referenced elsewhere, I think reference ought to be made here to JSON Pointer in order to clarify what meaning "escape ordering" has here. >> 2. The operation indicated in this section is "test" which is not documented in its respective sections as returning any kind of document at all. I believe "add" or "replace" must have been the intended operation instead. And to make clear that the value of key "~1" would have actually been affected by such a modifying operation, the value in the result ought to differ from that in the original document. >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC6902 (draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-10) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch >> Publication Date : April 2013 >> Author(s) : P. Bryan, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed. >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Applications Area Working Group APP >> Area : Applications >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
- [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC690… RFC Errata System
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Manger, James
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Mark Nottingham
- [apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6902 (4419) RFC Errata System