IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-01.txt

Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com> Tue, 20 March 2012 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <macar@cloudmark.com>
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 95DE721F8664 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 GtEsdoZJWVuv for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4490B21F865A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.2.21] (172.20.2.21) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:15:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4F68F370.7040506@cloudmark.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:15:28 -0700
From: Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20120309212231.16366.52439.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F689626.9070500@gmx.de> <1332261146.2171.7.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1332261146.2171.7.camel@neutron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.20.2.21]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] feedback on 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: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:15:29 -0000

On 03/20/2012 09:32 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:

> any JSON Patch implementation should be fully capable of resolving
> fragment identifiers itself.

And it will have to, given that the Patch spec depends on undefined 
behavior in Pointer.

No. I haven't given that issue up yet :) I'll respond to the other 
thread a bit later today.

-- 
Mike Acar -                                 - macar at cloudmark dot com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email