IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790343A1692 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 06:04:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
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 LQhYETQ7aOr2 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 06:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plum.mrochek.com (plum.mrochek.com [172.95.64.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF813A1691 for <art@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 06:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RSYM7PL2K000D8G3@mauve.mrochek.com> for art@ietf.org; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:59:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1607522347; bh=inqSzviEzPdBypSfKcChdFQshIqslCxuCwACe2HCAHI=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=kFPST/AXudYJr+381gZsz9I02Laehz/6Crtjd5s0+6UVyL3bgQkqDD0q8PDTl9sVI bFpzeQBCbU8zfl3FyRnDN7K7PIJqjZcq+tayT1r3u7EpBrpePwJeYvNaiJuL0vaBgg PcB/cHwS/VJLZpEuFmwEUzDvXWqMVOgN39gzGLDY=
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 <01RSXJS63P28004QVR@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Cc: pbryan@anode.ca, mnot@mnot.net, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, art@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, palle@4thex.com
Message-id: <01RSYM7KO30M004QVR@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 05:56:52 -0800
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 09 Dec 2020 03:19:42 -0800 (PST)" <20201209111942.318A0F40727@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20201209111942.318A0F40727@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/85xzZOG12G8gmTCaeArTK_KxIZs>
Subject: Re: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6902 (6351)
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 14:04:15 -0000

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any actual error that needs to
be corrected. Nor do I see it as an actual deficiency, so my recommendation 
is to reject.

				Ned


> 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 <palle@4thex.com>

> 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

> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email