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

[Yakov Shafranovich <[e-mail]>]

Thank you! I will relay this information to my WG at the W3C.

I guess this means the errata should really be reported on RFC 7159 instead?

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Tony Hansen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 5/15/15 9:31 AM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>> [For context, this is originating from the work at the W3C regarding CSV files]
>>
>> There appears to be an issue about how to specify encoding
>> considerations for media types that can be encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16
>> and UTF-32. For media types, the valid choices are 7-bit, 8-bit and
>> binary, which would mean that UTF-16 and UTF-32 are binary. For JSON
>> specifically, since both RFCs define JSON, there is a conflict.
>>
>> There are two ways to write this then:
>>
>> 1. As in RFC 6839:
>>
>> "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])."
>>
>> 2. As per RFC 7159:
>>
>> "binary"
>>
>> What I am arguing is that the second approach would make more sense.
>> Just like RFC 7159 choose to use "binary" in case of multiple UTF
>> encodings, we should follow the same approach in RFC 6839. If not,
>> then RFC 7159 should have errata pointing back to RFC 6839.
>
> Hmmm, it's too bad we didn't catch this before 7159 was published. 7159
> is wrong, or at least incomplete.
>
> When JSON is written in UTF-8, you MAY use an encoding of 8-bit, or you
> MAY use an encoding of binary. When JSON is written in UTF-16 or -32,
> you MUST use an encoding of binary.
>
> This is because of the definition of the encoding system definitions of
> 7-bit, 8-bit and binary, which is totally orthogonal to ANY media type.
> The definition of UTF-8 is, in and of itself, compatible with the
> definition of 8-bit encoding.
>
>     Tony
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yakov
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 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]>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>
>