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

I think it's the case that it's a correct — but not necessarily the clearest — example.

> On 21 Jul 2015, at 4:28 pm, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
> (Re-sending this with what I presume is the correct email address for Brett.)
> 
>> This seems reasonable to me, although it does seem more like a text
>> improvement than a strict errata - Barry, any thoughts?
> 
> Was it an error in the spec that the example makes a patch that
> doesn't actually make any change to the JSON?
> 
> If that was a mistake, then this report (or some edited version of it)
> should be "verified".
> 
> If that was intentional, showing an example of a valid patch that
> makes no changes, then this report should be "rejected".
> 
> In either case...
> 
>> 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.
> 
> ...that's a good thing to do, as that's the right place to record
> comments about the clarity of the document, which might be considered
> if we ever do another version.
> 
>>> On 17 Jul 2015, at 9:36 pm, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> 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 <brettz9@yaho.com>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

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