Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6839 (4367)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

And yet this RFC predates 7159, so how can 7159 be taken to support errata
for this RFC?

Barry

On Friday, May 15, 2015, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6839,
> "Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6839&eid=4367
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Yakov Shafranovich <[e-mail] <javascript:;>>
>
> Section: 3.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Encoding considerations:
>
>       Per [RFC4627], JSON is allowed to be represented using UTF-8,
>       UTF-16, or UTF-32.  When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit
>       compatible ([RFC2045]).  When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32,
>       JSON is binary ([RFC2045]).
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Encoding considerations:  binary as per section 11 of RFC 7159
>
> Notes
> -----
> RFC 7159, section 11 specifies that encoding for JSON is binary.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6839 (draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes
> Publication Date    : January 2013
> Author(s)           : T. Hansen, A. Melnikov
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : Applications Area Working Group
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>