Re: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (6351)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Palle.

Welcome to the IETF, and thanks for your comments about the JSON Patch RFC 6902.

As others have noted, your comments are not in scope for errata
reports, which are meant to collect errors in the documents, things
that were actual errors at publication and that would have been fixed
at that time had the working group or document authors noticed them --
they were just missed.  What you've reported is a feature suggestion,
not an erratum, and we will be rejecting it as an errata report.

That said, I understand that folks who aren't experienced with how the
IETF works often do not know where to bring such suggestions, and
errata reports can seem like the right way to approach us.  Let me
suggest that you re-formulate your report as a suggestion for
improvement/extension to JSON Patch, and post that suggestion for
discussion on the mailing list of the former JSON working group
<[e-mail]>.  That mailing list is still open, and folks
interested in JSON issues are still subscribed.  If there is enough
interest, it's possible to publish an update or extension to JSON
Patch.

Barry Leiba, ART Area Director

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:20 AM RFC Errata System
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6902,
> "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6351
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Palle Cogburn <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: GLOBAL
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> If the patch elements included a property "previous" that contained the original value in case of an operation such as "remove" for instance, it would be easy to create the reverse operation - "add". In that way the path elements can be used as audit records and it is easy to revert a path or even a part of a patch, so the document is back to a previous version. All you have to do is apply the reverse patch and also add those elements to the audit trail.
> Is this something to consider adding to this document or is it an implementation detail?
>
> 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
> 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