Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4419)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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/