Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-17

[James <[e-mail]>]

(speaking only for myself here as a JSON Path enthusiast)

Thank you for your review, but I strongly disagree and I'm concerned you've misunderstood the purpose of the document and its aims for extensibility and interoperability. To reply to the three points you have raised:

1. The document aims to define a way of querying, without modification to existing JSON specifications and to do so with interop in mind. Could you please elaborate why Standards Track is not appropriate for a document with those goals, and what requisites have not been met?

2. The document includes extensibility to reduce any need for changes to syntax and thus help with ongoing interoperability of queries between implementations. Should someone propose new syntax to represent the traversal of JSON structures in the future that would not fit within the proposed extensions model, then a new version of the specification could be written.

3. The IANA registry is intended to avoid collisions in extension names that may result in two different implementations having impactful differences in behaviour.

I hope this provides further clarity.

- J

> On 10 Aug 2023, at 20:18, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
> Review result: Not Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-17
> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
> Review Date: 2023-08-10
> IETF LC End Date: 2023-08-09
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The document specifies a method to parse the JSON objects to get values and
> specifies the syntax to retrieve a list of values. The document reads well.
> However, like any software programs, errors can be encountered at run time even
> after careful review.
> 
> Major issues:
> The major issue is that this document should not be “Standard Track” because:
> 1.      Existing parsers for JSON data don’t need to change to comply with the
> syntax specified in this document. 2.      Like SQL, this document specified
> syntax may change as more ways being developed by implementers to parse the
> JSON objects. 3.      It is not clear why IANA registration is needed.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Thanks, Linda Dunbar
> 
>