[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