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

[Yakov Shafranovich <[e-mail]>]

Thank you. If both are correct, can either one be specified for a new
+json media type registration. I am a member of the W3C CSVW group
where this is originating from.

This is in regards to the following registration:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types/current/msg00686.html

At the W3C, the following issue was raised:

https://github.com/w3c/csvw/issues/546

" "When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045])
so, 8bit not binary, since utf-8 is the default encoding your media
type registration says binary rfc6839 (which you reference) says the
above"

Yakov

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail] <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
>> >
>> >