Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419)
"Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 01:09 UTC
Return-Path: <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C981ACD2F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uDrK3MOXB-E9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipxavo.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxavo.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.135.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D881ACD29 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,511,1432562400"; d="scan'208";a="12396191"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipcdvi.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.217.212]) by ipoavi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2015 11:09:25 +1000
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,7868"; a="10770911"
Received: from wsmsg3756.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.84]) by ipcdvi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2015 11:09:24 +1000
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by wsmsg3756.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.84]) with mapi; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:24 +1000
From: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:22 +1000
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419)
Thread-Index: AdDC6xzBT128W3TDS8Crie0xK5l+TwAY2quQ
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E129343E5801@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <20150717193624.EF72218046E@rfc-editor.org> <02FCD555-BC2F-48DB-8D7D-C494FCAC202D@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <02FCD555-BC2F-48DB-8D7D-C494FCAC202D@mnot.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/TbDTP2NsfKWQG-B6PB_MELFvlL8>
Cc: "pbryan@anode.ca" <pbryan@anode.ca>, "barryleiba@computer.org" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "brettz9@yaho.com" <brettz9@yaho.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 21 Jul 2015 01:09:31 -0000
RFC6902 "JSON Patch" section A.14. "~ Escape Ordering" is correct, but could be worded more clearly. Saying "The test succeeds" would make more sense than "The resulting JSON [is]". A.8, A.9, and A.15 are better worded with their use of "op":"test". Compare A.14. to A.15. "Comparing Strings and Numbers". They both use "op":"test" with the same target and very similar patches. A.15 says "This results in an error, because the test fails". That contrasts well with A.14 were the test succeeds. Perhaps a better editorial errata would be: > Section: A.14 > > Original Text > ------------- > An example target JSON document: > > { > "/": 9, > "~1": 10 > } > > A JSON Patch document: > > [ > {"op": "test", "path": "/~01", "value": 10} > ] > > The resulting JSON document: > > { > "/": 9, > "~1": 10 > } > > Corrected Text > -------------- > An example target JSON document: > > { > "/": 9, > "~1": 10 > } > > A JSON Patch document: > > [ > {"op": "test", "path": "/~01", "value": 10} > ] > > The test succeeds, as JSON Pointer escaping applies once to the "path" value. -- James Manger -----Original Message----- From: apps-discuss [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 10:52 PM To: RFC Errata System Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; brettz9@yaho.com; barryleiba@computer.org; pbryan@anode.ca Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419) This seems reasonable to me, although it does seem more like a text improvement than a strict errata - Barry, any thoughts? I've raised an issue here: https://github.com/json-patch/json-patch-tests/issues/22 … as that's where most of the JSON Patch implementer community pays attention. Cheers, > On 17 Jul 2015, at 9:36 pm, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6902, > "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6902&eid=4419 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Brett Zamir <brettz9@yaho.com> > > Section: A.14 > > Original Text > ------------- > An example target JSON document: > > { > "/": 9, > "~1": 10 > } > > A JSON Patch document: > > [ > {"op": "test", "path": "/~01", "value": 10} > ] > > The resulting JSON document: > > { > "/": 9, > "~1": 10 > } > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Proper JSON Pointer escaping should occur when resolving paths for > application to the target document. > > An example target JSON document: > > { > "/": 9, > "~1": 10 > } > > A JSON Patch document: > > [ > {"op": "add", "path": "/~01", "value": 11} > ] > > The resulting JSON document: > > { > "/": 9, > "~1": 11 > } > > Notes > ----- > At http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902#appendix-A.14 , I have a few issues: > > 1. Even though JSON Pointer is referenced elsewhere, I think reference ought to be made here to JSON Pointer in order to clarify what meaning "escape ordering" has here. > 2. The operation indicated in this section is "test" which is not documented in its respective sections as returning any kind of document at all. I believe "add" or "replace" must have been the intended operation instead. And to make clear that the value of key "~1" would have actually been affected by such a modifying operation, the value in the result ought to differ from that in the original document. > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6902 (draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch > Publication Date : April 2013 > Author(s) : P. Bryan, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Applications Area Working Group APP > Area : Applications > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
- [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC690… RFC Errata System
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Manger, James
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RF… Mark Nottingham
- [apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6902 (4419) RFC Errata System