Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6901 (3981)

"Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca> Wed, 07 May 2014 02:11 UTC

Message-ID: <1399428681.17221.6.camel@dilithium>
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 19:11:21 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1E224DDD-ED1D-4472-B982-D9B21973E6DC@mnot.net>
References: <20140506180037.BA26218000E@rfc-editor.org> <1E224DDD-ED1D-4472-B982-D9B21973E6DC@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-/a+QkN4c66F/fztbZ4Nc"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/EefYBPw-TJqbkM737qSWJlNn76k
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, david@acz.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, kris@sitepen.com, barryleiba@computer.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6901 (3981)
Precedence: list

I concur with Mark. This is a substantive, breaking change. Therefore, I
also think it should be rejected. It should be considered in any future
revisions.

Paul

On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 11:55 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> This seems like a request for a change to the RFC, not an errata.
> 
> Therefore, I think it should be rejected.
> 
> That said, I’ve been talking with a few people in the background about a possible revision to the spec (or a new format based upon it), and would love to have your input for that.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 May 2014, at 4:00 am, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6901,
> > "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer".
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6901&eid=3981
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: David Phillips <david@acz.org>
> > 
> > Section: 3
> > 
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > See Notes
> > 
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > The following two examples from section 5 are different:
> > 
> > Original: "/a~1b"
> > Proposed: "/a//b"
> > 
> > Original: "/m~0n"
> > Proposed: "/m~n"
> > 
> > The other examples are the same.
> > 
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The escape syntax seems weird and confusing. Rather than ~0 and ~1, why not use a repeated (double) slash to escape a slash? This is similar to how SQL escapes single quotes in string literals by using the single quote twice.
> > 
> > We have JSON functions in Presto (prestodb.io) that could benefit from an improved syntax (they currently use JSONPath), but I can't see understanding ~0 and ~1.
> > 
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This errata 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. 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC6901 (draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-09)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer
> > Publication Date    : April 2013
> > Author(s)           : P. Bryan, Ed., K. Zyp, M. Nottingham, Ed.
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Applications Area Working Group
> > Area                : Applications
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
>

Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Mark Nottingham
Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Paul C. Bryan
Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Manger, James
[apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6901 (3981) RFC Errata System
[apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC690… RFC Errata System