Re: [Art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (4787)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

This isn't an errata; it would require gaining consensus and updating the document. See also: https://github.com/json-patch/json-patch2

REJECT or HOLD FOR DOCUMENT UPDATE, I think.


> On 26 Aug 2016, at 4:29 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:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6902&eid=4787
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Daniel Frey <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 4.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> The "remove" operation removes the value at the target location.
> 
> The target location MUST exist for the operation to be successful.
> 
> For example:
> 
> { "op": "remove", "path": "/a/b/c" }
> 
> If removing an element from an array, any elements above the
> specified index are shifted one position to the left.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The "remove" operation removes the value at the target location.
> 
> The target location MUST exist for the operation to be successful.
> 
> For example:
> 
> { "op": "remove", "path": "/a/b/c" }
> 
> If removing an element from an array, any elements above the
> specified index are shifted one position to the left.
> 
> The target location MUST NOT be a reference to the root. It is an
> error in this document:
> 
> { "op": "remove", "path": "" }
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The semantics of { "op": "remove", "path": "" } are never specified. If we allow to remove the root element, what would the result be? It would no longer be a valid JSON document, hence I propose to explicitly require the path of the "remove" operation to not reference the root.
> 
> 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/