IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8259 (7617)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 25 August 2023 04:32 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D80DC151536 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 21:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJ_u3FwcohO1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 21:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (unknown [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63325C151531 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 21:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 35FABAFB45; Thu, 24 Aug 2023 21:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: tbray@textuality.com, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: guillaume.fortin@debigare.com, json@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230825043204.35FABAFB45@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 21:32:04 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/1TooSnuhfKolnaEROa--NVo5JDE>
Subject: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8259 (7617)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 04:32:08 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8259,
"The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7617

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Guillaume Fortin-Debigaré <guillaume.fortin@debigare.com>

Section: 6

Original Text
-------------
   Note that when such software is used, numbers that are integers and
   are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in the
   sense that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric
   values.

Corrected Text
--------------
   Note that when such software parses numbers as rational numbers in
   decimal or scientific notation, they are interoperable in the sense
   that implementations will agree exactly on their numeric values. In
   particular, when such software is used, numbers that are integers and
   are in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] are interoperable in that
   sense.

Notes
-----
IEEE 754 does not consider negative zero and positive zero to be the same numeric value, even though it considers them equal. Despite this, JavaScript serializes negative zero as the JSON text "0", which contradicts the original text.

My suggested correction mentions "rational numbers in decimal or scientific notation" since it's never explicitly mentioned in the document how a number should be interpreted when parsed to maximize interoperability. This version addresses that concern at the same time.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8259 (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-04)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format
Publication Date    : December 2017
Author(s)           : T. Bray, Ed.
Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
Source              : Javascript Object Notation Update
Area                : Applications and Real-Time
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email