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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Ah, thanks for the context; will change it back.


On 18/12/2012, at 4:17 AM, Paul C. Bryan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

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