IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9535 <draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-21> for your review

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 13 February 2024 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00734C15107F; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:44:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjFJ1oCj-7hm; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:44:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A796DC14F693; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from client-0165.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0165.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4TZBcL3yTMzDCcd; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:44:50 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <45761E29-D26D-4D73-A5A3-D0226A2C43C2@tzi.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:44:50 +0100
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Stefan Gössner <stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de>, Glyn Normington <glyn.normington@gmail.com>, jsonpath-ads@ietf.org, jsonpath-chairs@ietf.org, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, superuser@gmail.com, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 729546289.932765-18b2d074cecbad16fae1de486b108b54
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <65029830-B4BA-4684-ACCD-E0D1E5654D55@tzi.org>
References: <20240130062410.D02DF1E64A@rfcpa.amsl.com> <8DDA3557-E82D-4A29-9AFA-DDD82BBA13B2@tzi.org> <CCBE94F3-C800-42E0-AB15-4B6C11F46E86@tzi.org> <5AB46EE0-BA9C-4C37-BA1E-FA47FD41EBEF@amsl.com> <5DD56C57-47EB-4836-B81C-C1B65A64BC2E@tzi.org> <493459CE-04C9-4989-BBA4-536F583ACF46@tzi.org> <4DAEBB01-2BC0-473D-9A92-711E7FD711F7@amsl.com> <3C0CDCF7-C19C-4581-AD67-4739D5890957@tzi.org> <45761E29-D26D-4D73-A5A3-D0226A2C43C2@tzi.org>
To: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/1wrzGfsJa619Cq3EEDwI25IORLU>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9535 <draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-21> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:44:59 -0000

On 2024-02-13, at 20:03, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> (3) We are noticing an empty line in the STD80 reference, and the missing DOI that I have noticed previously in STD/BCP references.  We probably don’t want to wait for the final fix for the subseries references, so our fallback is to simply reference [RFC20].  Or maybe this will be fixed in time?

After hearing at the tools team meeting today that the fix is still considered being under discussion, I committed the fallback towards simply citing RFC0020.  So I think we can now strike this one from the list.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status