IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 01 March 2012 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
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 D48E921E806A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:00:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joB0m4g5IXlK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A765421E8024 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::e82a:4f80:7f44:eaf7%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:00:11 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00
Thread-Index: AQHM9+d/ykpyZt+42kKhe+gEF12z9JZV4QswgACHTwCAAALmAIAAFMUA//99OaA=
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:00:11 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392806FDBB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4F4FD7EB.8080004@cloudmark.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392806FAA0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F4FDA86.4040506@cloudmark.com> <4F4FDCF4.2000107@gmx.de> <1330638432.2531.12.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1330638432.2531.12.camel@neutron>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392806FDBBexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00
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: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:00:13 -0000

Here’s an example:


   [I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT]

              Fontana, H., "Authentication Failure Reporting using the

              Abuse Report Format",

              I-D draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report>, January 2012.


From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul C. Bryan
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:47 PM
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00

On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 21:32 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:





Nit: that reference should actually use the standard ID reference format...

Is this just removing the space from the reference, or are there other considerations?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email