Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419)

(Re-sending this with what I presume is the correct email address for Brett.)

> 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.

>> 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