Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7386 (4132)

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

Yep, what Barry said; this one needs to be re-issued under a new number.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I will mark the report as Verified (and will change it to Technical), but
> there is no way to have the RFC fixed without a new RFC that obsoletes it.
> This is all stuff that should be checked in AUTH48, and is why the RFC
> Editor recommends not relying only on the diff.
>
> James, if you want to get it updated tout de suite, you can submit a 7386bis
> draft, which I will immediately last call.  To do the draft, get the final
> 7386.xml from the RFC Editor, add an "obsoletes=7386" at the top (and take
> off the special RFC Editor attributes), make sure all the tabs are replaced
> by spaces and everything lines up correctly, and add a paragraph to the
> Abstract and Introduction that says that this is a replacement to RFC 7386
> that corrects indentation errors.  Make no other changes, and I'll note in
> the last call note that no other changes are in scope.
>
> The replacement RFC will have a new RFC number.
>
> Barry
>
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Manger, James
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for reporting this as an errata Stephane. "Editorial" is the wrong
>> classification however; it is "Technical". The indentation is critical to
>> understanding the function. The function isn't merely to reinforce normative
>> text -- the function is the only normative specification of the Merge-Patch
>> processing rules. The other text only gives a casual description of some
>> rules (in the introduction), calls attention to some corner cases, and
>> provides examples.
>>
>> If the RFC editors cannot correct the indentation, we need a new RFC.
>> Personally I don't think an accepted errata is sufficient. The doc is too
>> unusable in its current state.
>> Can this sort of critical typo be fixed without a new RFC number?
>>
>> P.S. Curiously, the "Diff2" format on tools.ietf.org
>> [https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc7386] shows the indentation as being
>> correct in rfc7386.txt and draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07. Probably
>> a tools glitch.
>>
>> --
>> James Manger
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: apps-discuss [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of RFC
>> Errata System
>> Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2014 5:38 AM
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7386 (4132)
>>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7386, "JSON Merge
>> Patch".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7386&eid=4132
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Stéphane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Section: 2
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> define MergePatch(Target, Patch):
>>        if Patch is an Object:
>>          if Target is not an Object:
>>        Target = {} # Ignore the contents and set it to an empty Object
>>          for each Name/Value pair in Patch:
>>        if Value is null:
>>          if Name exists in Target:
>>            remove the Name/Value pair from Target
>>        else:
>>          Target[Name] = MergePatch(Target[Name], Value)
>>          return Target
>>        else:
>>          return Patch
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>    define MergePatch(Target, Patch):
>>      if Patch is an Object:
>>        if Target is not an Object:
>>          Target = {} # Ignore the contents and set it to an empty Object
>>        for each Name/Value pair in Patch:
>>          if Value is null:
>>            if Name exists in Target:
>>              remove the Name/Value pair from Target
>>          else:
>>            Target[Name] = MergePatch(Target[Name], Value)
>>        return Target
>>      else:
>>        return Patch
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> Indentation of the pseudo-code example was correct in the Internet-Drafts
>> but was  messed up in the final version. For instance, "Target = {}" should
>> be under the two ifs. (Reported by James H. Manger on the appsawg mailing
>> list.)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7386 (draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : JSON Merge Patch
>> Publication Date    : October 2014
>> Author(s)           : P. Hoffman, J. Snell
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Applications Area Working Group
>> Area                : Applications
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>



-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)