Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6839 (4367)

Yakov Shafranovich <yakov-ietf@shaftek.org> Fri, 15 May 2015 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <yakov@shaftek.org>
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 B21021A8A74 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 06:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 9IPZ-s-7hW60 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 06:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (mail-qg0-f44.google.com [209.85.192.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EEEB1A8A8F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 06:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgfh8 with SMTP id h8so957626qgf.3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 06:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Fd2+30BNMQnlJvRc9uJW2bns9bSCQW674iBh7r6/1lA=; b=MwhlcW3pC3djy/S8KrM9PlGWEB3sX/hadZVwnaudSsJ9dVNeojQF+DwdkvWL3BLgmW FQBeUF0kSVva303AmeOpg4DGgA8/KtPSi1xDFJwTLsZ89NLstI/GfK1i7gmyyVWBiRK0 j5j1wIA9j/MAuNMd082ftpFN0vsFXoQ7ZEJ6Nu2R4ThBN2cSmr9UrWPpCDDW+aHx00sS AYN517zHmTVxzlAmoOSN7SEQdGIZPu84EW2KxXg/Wv5WLOEQ7mkC8VjpDP8o9FmpVDGy Lgz7Fk60qyh6F9KKkRQD6M0sOT9WHYb/IQNyDcWYNVRlH24A5cHPPYhNfinsTB/mRpYY 8lWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJpVxjw16orhduTQgDsmEgWHELHcGCpFEzHlA0bhix2bSde9BNXBwleboqy6On+1smcqx2
X-Received: by 10.140.30.100 with SMTP id c91mr12228143qgc.81.1431696694309; Fri, 15 May 2015 06:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yakov@shaftek.org
Received: by 10.140.98.194 with HTTP; Fri, 15 May 2015 06:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.103.24.152]
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ++ptrFqjjC=mRC9zH8ns18bermy2YAfYYLx5OtX0Zdqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150515131052.8E76D180092@rfc-editor.org> <CALaySJ++ptrFqjjC=mRC9zH8ns18bermy2YAfYYLx5OtX0Zdqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov-ietf@shaftek.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 09:31:03 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nVj7k_Vq9nOnmbCUyfn5y13G6ac
Message-ID: <CAPQd5oTZZKimSWcQaLBeHmq7o-npxvL8KM3HRQPW9JQPHs_ONw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/gkghL6qJRySJ6pn5RmfXnTkIeHI>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 16 May 2015 08:34:45 -0700
Cc: "tony+sss@maillennium.att.com" <tony+sss@maillennium.att.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6839 (4367)
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: <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: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:31:52 -0000

[For context, this is originating from the work at the W3C regarding CSV files]

There appears to be an issue about how to specify encoding
considerations for media types that can be encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16
and UTF-32. For media types, the valid choices are 7-bit, 8-bit and
binary, which would mean that UTF-16 and UTF-32 are binary. For JSON
specifically, since both RFCs define JSON, there is a conflict.

There are two ways to write this then:

1. As in RFC 6839:

"When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045]).
When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, JSON is binary ([RFC2045])."

2. As per RFC 7159:

"binary"

What I am arguing is that the second approach would make more sense.
Just like RFC 7159 choose to use "binary" in case of multiple UTF
encodings, we should follow the same approach in RFC 6839. If not,
then RFC 7159 should have errata pointing back to RFC 6839.

Thanks,
Yakov

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> And yet this RFC predates 7159, so how can 7159 be taken to support errata
> for this RFC?
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Friday, May 15, 2015, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6839,
>> "Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6839&eid=4367
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov-ietf@shaftek.org>
>>
>> Section: 3.1
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> Encoding considerations:
>>
>>       Per [RFC4627], JSON is allowed to be represented using UTF-8,
>>       UTF-16, or UTF-32.  When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit
>>       compatible ([RFC2045]).  When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32,
>>       JSON is binary ([RFC2045]).
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> Encoding considerations:  binary as per section 11 of RFC 7159
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> RFC 7159, section 11 specifies that encoding for JSON is binary.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC6839 (draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes
>> Publication Date    : January 2013
>> Author(s)           : T. Hansen, A. Melnikov
>> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>> Source              : Applications Area Working Group
>> Area                : Applications
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
>