Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7386 (4132)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

I will mark the report as Verified (and will change it to Technical), but
there is no way to have the RFC fixed without a new RFC that obsoletes it.
This is all stuff that should be checked in AUTH48, and is why the RFC
Editor recommends not relying only on the diff.

James, if you want to get it updated tout de suite, you can submit a
7386bis draft, which I will immediately last call.  To do the draft, get
the final 7386.xml from the RFC Editor, add an "obsoletes=7386" at the top
(and take off the special RFC Editor attributes), make sure all the tabs
are replaced by spaces and everything lines up correctly, and add a
paragraph to the Abstract and Introduction that says that this is a
replacement to RFC 7386 that corrects indentation errors.  Make no other
changes, and I'll note in the last call note that no other changes are in
scope.

The replacement RFC will have a new RFC number.

Barry

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Manger, James <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for reporting this as an errata Stephane. "Editorial" is the wrong
> classification however; it is "Technical". The indentation is critical to
> understanding the function. The function isn't merely to reinforce
> normative text -- the function is the only normative specification of the
> Merge-Patch processing rules. The other text only gives a casual
> description of some rules (in the introduction), calls attention to some
> corner cases, and provides examples.
>
> If the RFC editors cannot correct the indentation, we need a new RFC.
> Personally I don't think an accepted errata is sufficient. The doc is too
> unusable in its current state.
> Can this sort of critical typo be fixed without a new RFC number?
>
> P.S. Curiously, the "Diff2" format on tools.ietf.org [
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc7386] shows the indentation as
> being correct in rfc7386.txt and draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07.
> Probably a tools glitch.
>
> --
> James Manger
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss [mailto:[e-mail] <javascript:;>]
> On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2014 5:38 AM
> To: [e-mail] <javascript:;>; [e-mail] <javascript:;>;
> [e-mail] <javascript:;>; [e-mail]
> <javascript:;>; [e-mail] <javascript:;>;
> [e-mail] <javascript:;>
> Cc: [e-mail] <javascript:;>; [e-mail]
> <javascript:;>
> Subject: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7386 (4132)
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7386, "JSON Merge
> Patch".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7386&eid=4132
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Stéphane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail] <javascript:;>>
>
> Section: 2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> define MergePatch(Target, Patch):
>        if Patch is an Object:
>          if Target is not an Object:
>        Target = {} # Ignore the contents and set it to an empty Object
>          for each Name/Value pair in Patch:
>        if Value is null:
>          if Name exists in Target:
>            remove the Name/Value pair from Target
>        else:
>          Target[Name] = MergePatch(Target[Name], Value)
>          return Target
>        else:
>          return Patch
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    define MergePatch(Target, Patch):
>      if Patch is an Object:
>        if Target is not an Object:
>          Target = {} # Ignore the contents and set it to an empty Object
>        for each Name/Value pair in Patch:
>          if Value is null:
>            if Name exists in Target:
>              remove the Name/Value pair from Target
>          else:
>            Target[Name] = MergePatch(Target[Name], Value)
>        return Target
>      else:
>        return Patch
>
> Notes
> -----
> Indentation of the pseudo-code example was correct in the Internet-Drafts
> but was  messed up in the final version. For instance, "Target = {}" should
> be under the two ifs. (Reported by James H. Manger on the appsawg mailing
> list.)
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7386 (draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : JSON Merge Patch
> Publication Date    : October 2014
> Author(s)           : P. Hoffman, J. Snell
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Applications Area Working Group
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>