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

["Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

Incidentally, early (draft-pbryan-json-patch-*) drafts were aligned with
JSON; later feedback when adopted by the IETF APPSAWG changed it to
binary (starting in draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00). The grounds for
this was a consensus that the JSON draft was wrong to have made it 8bit
for UTF-8.

Paul

On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 14:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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/
> 
> 
>