Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 01 March 2012 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC79121E82C6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:32:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.072
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.473, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-VxtPUBwatJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F028621E8032 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:32:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Mar 2012 20:32:56 -0000
Received: from p5DCC2B62.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.43.98] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 01 Mar 2012 21:32:56 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/Z6U0iN4PZRYFdergjoPyHvMVFa5LEWu8bxML6ik +ytu6oLOF3lYAT
Message-ID: <4F4FDCF4.2000107@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:32:52 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com>
References: <4F4FD7EB.8080004@cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392806FAA0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F4FDA86.4040506@cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F4FDA86.4040506@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00
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: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:32:59 -0000

On 2012-03-01 21:22, Mike Acar wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 12:18 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> One other thing that came up in conversation is that the json-patch
>> document needs to make a reference (probably normative) to the
>> json-pointer document.
>
> It does;
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00#section-9.1 :
>
> 9.1. Normative References
>
> [JSON Pointer]
> Bryan, P. and K. Zyp, "JSON Pointer", January 2012, <http:
> //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00>.

Nit: that reference should actually use the standard ID reference format...

Best regards, Julian