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

I concur with Mark.

On Sep 2, 2016 10:16 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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 <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> 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 <d.frey@gmx.de>
> >
> > 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Art mailing list
> Art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>