Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Both fixed in SVN; thanks for the review.


On 16/12/2012, at 6:32 PM, Roni Even <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
>  
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
> 
>  
> Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date:2012–12–16
> IETF LC End Date: 2012–12–25
> IESG Telechat date: 2013-1-10
>  
> Summary: This draft is almost  ready for publication.
>  
>  
> Major issues:
>  
> Minor issues:
> 1.       The document has as the intended status “Informational” while the last call says that the intended status is proposed standard?
>  
>  
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 	• In the IANA section the “Encoding considerations:  binary”. I noticed that RFC 4627 has a broader description:
> “Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32
> JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32.  When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible.  When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding   must be used.”
>  
>  
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/