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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Fri, 15 May 2015 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
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 BD8A91A0045 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 RRSOhYGGSh0X for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765D11A0064 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PLZVVPAT5C00T4GT@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1431702868; bh=3ZUkyEbqo2mg1F8sVE4nZ5vpTQsRmB8qN48aFADERZs=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=aYlpyCXmsMVu9ROfwD3BX0SFV+xyVB1YnjULJB4luuqqqhQ/uSglpmEzS/G9Wtjep QOekjtpAcY6n6FfCPnmvZkLpN9WUF95FMyr4U0u7CSWNAfUmA/3+R/EQAEkELijaOP T/zBqylM55CNbPQ7MEMrwrYm/KrzC9mQtrzuliYU=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PLUN66JM8W0000AQ@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01PLZVVO768U0000AQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 08:12:59 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 15 May 2015 14:18:37 +0100" <CALaySJ++ptrFqjjC=mRC9zH8ns18bermy2YAfYYLx5OtX0Zdqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150515131052.8E76D180092@rfc-editor.org> <CALaySJ++ptrFqjjC=mRC9zH8ns18bermy2YAfYYLx5OtX0Zdqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/mExTwZa724cvX0ctVO2jscf-gqY>
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 15:17:00 -0000

> And yet this RFC predates 7159, so how can 7159 be taken to support errata
> for this RFC?

I suppose it could if it corrected something in the earlier RFC. But it
doesn't. The earlier RFC is simply providing a more complete description of the
encoding considerations that exist for JSON. Neither is incorrect though, so it
doesn't make any sort of case for being an error.

				Ned

> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >