IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] json-pointer #5 - semantics [was: Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00]

"Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca> Tue, 05 June 2012 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <pbryan@anode.ca>
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 34F7421F8687 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.064
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.534, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 tnSKeQ5aKw0f for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maple.anode.ca (maple.anode.ca [72.14.183.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F63721F8682 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.125.20.55] (unknown [209.52.95.1]) by maple.anode.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 616CD6488; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:22:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <pbryan@anode.ca>
To: Mike Acar <macar@cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FCE4B6F.8070708@cloudmark.com>
References: <4F4FD8A5.6010603@cloudmark.com> <1330638350.2531.11.camel@neutron> <4F514AF9.5010506@cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928077013@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <01173171-110F-4FBE-993A-E858B51E9068@mnot.net> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392813E630@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4FCE4B6F.8070708@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-ynzwT8NQBIfpVJcTudrE"
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:41:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1338928890.10251.6.camel@pbryan-wsl.internal.salesforce.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] json-pointer #5 - semantics [was: Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-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: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:22:18 -0000

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 11:09 -0700, Mike Acar wrote:

> On 05/31/2012 09:42 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:46 PM
> >> To: IETF Apps Discuss
> >> Subject: [apps-discuss] json-pointer #5 - semantics [was: Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00]
> 
> >> It seems like we need to add language stating that failing to match
> >> a particular token can be considered an error, or can be used by a
> >> particular application to effect some other behaviour. Make sense?
> 
> At first blush. But I think a spec that says "this can be an error or it 
> can be implementation-defined" doesn't really constrain an 
> implementation's behavior enough to be useful.
> 
> As Murray writes:
> 
> > I think the right approach is to say explicitly in pointer that it's
> > left to the application using pointer to decide whether a match
> > failure is an error or should be handled in some other way.
> 
> I think language that says "An application of JSON pointer needs to 
> define semantics for these cases" would be helpful, maybe with an 
> example for Patch.



+1

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status