IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Sun, 06 January 2013 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jasnell@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E1B21F8756; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:58:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HpckNnA7+mE7; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f174.google.com (mail-ia0-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65DD21F8732; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ia0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y25so14908766iay.5 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:58:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kZAtZHaF12CbwG28Kw5Lfr7sTXTN1zEibcbShC+7+EA=; b=aBpf/KB4fDPQhSvRkJ8b2ZGF9tptJlUP3EdL4PCGyU3xki8UAtbOyX99SD1kKtimfp ZxIri9HO3x30mY40pB1DJ5Lq3Z0ApnB2eYk+16kSlQxHftt6uve0GYriH7yQoR8LjxK6 qN2zzPGnvYVyIAOSkVqY3ScS/L54eGpGb39ZSdhA/x65l46p9xmE0pkc9HN8urIiTWaZ DT5g63bepR5NWo5H8bWL14DGuX5uclDgPQATZf8cXK2EzY8KCcg7yGKGgRKvDV67naov +W9kSQK7DgHiK5SwworSzkKnlIo8EHPa7+SrigfQob5/vxtnP3RzaB4lVPUqcGATs30h lyFQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.219.233 with SMTP id pr9mr2746714igc.19.1357451935539; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.7.19 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.7.19 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:58:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sxn1WXHb5cesUk8fa6=A6bxh8xhJW_WQ8mABPWbSZgtew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20121211150057.28223.93310.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50cb04b9.86df440a.72fe.1e20SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CABP7RbeNsZ_rBWRjou=VG+hBhUKaOz+y1a0sSChwWiHte9znnQ@mail.gmail.com> <50cb5f3c.694c420a.38fb.39afSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAChr6SxZRc3B_HCbw76kLe2dsRSr43r-gLpfMVnCUfJTrZdTLA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfA33huBFadMeXTTEt=MkjW8-d4DFH7+GLXGurnm9sSRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXDeqpPE4eNy_qJpDPdPHbCQakG9-hDcNZ3Sj9r4kWedByVzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SwtS_=iS-k4mJm1vHjEvvGVzay5jDYeGheqsPZqO-89CQ@mail.gmail.com> <EABB8F51-C3B4-49F5-8672-5C2ABAC7043A@mnot.net> <CAChr6Sx7JdKM91EwJaSZ0Ra_F4FSqkuc3vzTY1LM=F_8sWho+Q@mail.gmail.com> <263BA4B0-6401-4391-A369-A90863D9A4BC@mnot.net> <CAChr6Sw-hZwzB423qvkqyGfq8Aw6Jry-=B9zSzgp2GwbX6gQQg@mail.gmail.com> <E17FB936-BB87-4711-BEFB-21714B746B71@mnot.net> <CAChr6Sw_GJUE715G_E9DBSz57OvtVjzpU69nk9WwJzz3NPg8AA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcQARMAvisv4zUPX7+t97MQ_vwizBCiUBt6Nc7y7CapYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sxn1WXHb5cesUk8fa6=A6bxh8xhJW_WQ8mABPWbSZgtew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:58:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc2MyFtr9LWKZHfFzsa7Efd8syfJ+9kAksuFOyztLdoLA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae934120f6ae03304d2986821"
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:58:56 -0000

[{"op":"type","path":"","value":"array"},{"op":"remove","path":"/1"}]

Problem solved. Still no bug, and still nothing I can see that needs
fixing.

I've said my piece on it to. Afaic, this spec is done and ready to go.

- James
 On Jan 5, 2013 9:25 PM, "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 8:55 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 5, 2013 8:20 PM, "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes, you've brought that to our attention several times. If you wanted
> >> > this spec to align with your software, it would have been much easier
> >> > if you'd got involved before Last Call.
> >>
> >> Well, there shouldn't be any big adjustments to my software at all,
> >> and the document generally looks good. This is just a bug: two parties
> >> can apply the same patch and get different results, without
> >> encountering an error.
> >>
> >
> > Not seeing the bug... applying the same patch to different resources that
> > have different states ought to have different results.
>
> This argument is fallacious. Consider this JSON patch:
>
> { "op": "remove", "path": "/1" }
>
> This patch can be generated by removing a key from a hashtable by the
> sender, and then applied to an array by the recipient (which may
> result in array shifts etc). A good quality patch format would not
> permit such an obvious ambiguity, because applying that patch can fail
> all parties. The resulting document does not reflect the intent of any
> author.
>
> I have obviously said my piece. And, fwiw, I don't think the IESG
> should contradict the WG.
>
> - Rob
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email