[apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4787)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 25 August 2016 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 B26FC12D56F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 NwZWjUvGGEjq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8219912D568 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6AC17B80E5D; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: pbryan@anode.ca, mnot@mnot.net, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, superuser@gmail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160825182934.6AC17B80E5D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/a0WGRZguQIP6NK_12PwFZOvGx1o>
Cc: d.frey@gmx.de, apps-discuss@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4787)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:29:36 -0000

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=4787

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Daniel Frey <d.frey@gmx.de>

Section: 4.2

Original Text
-------------
The "remove" operation removes the value at the target location.

The target location MUST exist for the operation to be successful.

For example:

{ "op": "remove", "path": "/a/b/c" }

If removing an element from an array, any elements above the
specified index are shifted one position to the left.


Corrected Text
--------------
The "remove" operation removes the value at the target location.

The target location MUST exist for the operation to be successful.

For example:

{ "op": "remove", "path": "/a/b/c" }

If removing an element from an array, any elements above the
specified index are shifted one position to the left.

The target location MUST NOT be a reference to the root. It is an
error in this document:

{ "op": "remove", "path": "" }


Notes
-----
The semantics of { "op": "remove", "path": "" } are never specified. If we allow to remove the root element, what would the result be? It would no longer be a valid JSON document, hence I propose to explicitly require the path of the "remove" operation to not reference the root.

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