[domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "integer" in JSON
Ulysse Carion <ulysse@segment.com> Mon, 12 August 2019 23:54 UTC
Return-Path: <ulysse@segment.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15F6120018 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=segment.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 Hwgqix5YUPEL for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8C512001B for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id j7so21012413ota.9 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=segment.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=163ShWnLo+ZgVTEoOw7aaFnZ8AGInTeUhbUdC2OUoAQ=; b=U9AG/1yahLaAETS9MVISC0BUzpA2zQoctTClIaAorfsLnhe3FZCFOtvPFHofIhwBVA DqELWvnCOh4u0TtNOjqBUfsbzYcfOxtEUIHpmtYwBVHWkB6dZePokhks0x8utWe35dim 8NYqOeO2TUsSUMLuFBWCtr/OVeRfe+G0mbtzQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=163ShWnLo+ZgVTEoOw7aaFnZ8AGInTeUhbUdC2OUoAQ=; b=gXCCsOyXlzHd1UofOG5Jwk+FJzvufONCZYP/EXcIsgFa7UozX5CGD+i1u9Cmh86boD tPo0AtwsyD5ciJTB2tjMBGn+9qgcBeF4I5D17KXNcnlwPmzmS+mGMRFRnejJECc8z1Jy osfMkwMZXowNozCvXZjGViSUOgUfcUAUWN1LYXkTGxDXokY8yRagecO9Y21xZBYCilTD HJNbjDJLop2Hy+ULe9jTdrVoWW9FhZVG5X7rKB8/h/tWsWqbKDC8Rw+193w8Z5C6S0Ht PTS2YvCqP6CdBLW+M9BlIp4MD7k0CHTRyvKRO56W93CPtD9Tu/9NBBFh4pc7ikVC83T2 CZBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUsiUrYPPsNv1BPPIMH9qUrr3e4/9UuRe/vgxrTVCqslmqbE2g r2a18R7SOwZ5dNBWYBzNh+5GWh45/UYx7mt/MpGLiNxY6yc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxc//tbyK/EIUvJuSAFDTRygEPBZxx1RKpu3lQ5SQz21i3U/pT03IxU/cm4DxYsdTT8roNbnt3/HwKBsQSOfTM=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c84b:: with SMTP id r11mr5716463jao.3.1565654088773; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ulysse Carion <ulysse@segment.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK=1Rhc-Xam1KvS3UZrC4WeOBLVj06Du1U4bsLGs6+53_TZag@mail.gmail.com>
To: domainrep@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/domainrep/QS44ZYRKPIaq5dNcTBF20qVAVkk>
Subject: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "integer" in JSON
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/domainrep/>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:54:52 -0000
Hi all, Section 6.2.1 of RFC 7071 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7071#section-6.2.1) says: > INTEGER: an "integer" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] But JSON does not explicitly define integers. Perhaps the "int" ABNF rule was what was meant? The word "integer" only appears in passing here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627#section-2.4 Thanks, Ulysse
- [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "intege… Ulysse Carion
- Re: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "in… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "in… Ulysse Carion
- Re: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "in… Carsten Bormann