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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Also - we're collecting ideas for a revision of JSON Patch at:
  https://github.com/json-patch/json-patch2

Cheers,


> On 10 Dec 2020, at 2:34 am, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/