IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 16 November 2012 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 3A3B321E8051 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.731
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bMIxlli3tFlK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8659E21E803C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (unknown [118.209.81.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A80DA509B7; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:17:46 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115006C7A5C@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:17:42 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <45B7BA35-8717-4597-902B-168E7B894A68@mnot.net>
References: <D8B6B887-7206-4197-B78D-7E2B38A20EF9@vpnc.org> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115006C7A5C@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer
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: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:17:49 -0000

On 16/11/2012, at 2:56 PM, "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:

> The issue with NUL is that you need to be careful not to misinterpret it as an end-of-string marker. How about:
> 
>   Note that JSON pointers can contain the NUL (Unicode U+0000)
>   character. Care is needed not to misinterpret this character
>   in programming languages that use NUL to mark the end of a string.

In Security Considerations?

> And a reminder that there was one other just-before-WGLC comment: disallowing unnecessary leading 0's (eg allow /7, but not /007, to point into an array).

Yes. probably needs to make it into the ABNF.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email