[apps-discuss] JSON Patch: Shortening operation names?

"Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com> Tue, 06 December 2011 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7203021F8906 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:56:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNr9qF3PnJ6m for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu1sys200aog104.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog104.obsmtp.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7175421F87FA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f176.google.com ([]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob104.postini.com ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKTt12MUzzfrByty8kVmd0TH1zTkmSBSNq@postini.com; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:56:06 UTC
Received: by yenm10 with SMTP id m10so4584020yen.35 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x79mr2380889yhj.92.1323136561105; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (S0106a021b762dbb3.vf.shawcable.net. []) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q16sm33433098anb.19.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1323136558.12382.28.camel@neutron>
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:55:58 -0800
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-GkBusSHQ8O4i0dYL4EbN"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch: Shortening operation names?
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, 06 Dec 2011 01:56:09 -0000

It's been suggested on more than one occasion that the operation names
in JSON Patch are too verbose. I've countered with the point that if you
transmit via HTTP and "Content-Encoding: gzip", the verbosity is nicely
compressed out. This argument has served me well (insofar as it tends to
silence most critics), but I continue to get challenged on this point.
I'm curious to know what position APPSAWG members may have. Should I use
"rm" or even "-" instead of the more verbose "remove"?