[Json] Fwd: Re: Extra Review of rfc7159bis?
Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Thu, 29 September 2016 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.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 CA21A12B1C4 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L6osu-GzNMD2 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41FB512B1C1 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2418; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1475167960; x=1476377560; h=subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=reST1TaUIi4YqozGS0SNI0akKVXR99YthYg2YqAWUD0=; b=kwKWSPFlM/kG+3DQnKANBBIh1e1Pdrm+fdSahznuDH7TAyMJl32+fUko 4pn0Kia0/WAOTbcqBOGOaUW/iIHJqHqLJvDHqhSjDlyW2VqImEmG4boQ4 0MmTILejFFXpNn9VaDezhHrA+YJ8qyDbhoObJDbWo0TRTR0YePtCI6G+I w=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AOBACRRu1X/4UNJK1dGgEBAQMBAQEJAQEBg0ABAQEBAR6BAY4ElVwFAYEWlCeCBoYeAoFkOBQBAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4RiAgQjVhBNAgJNChMIAQGISa9JjGgBAQEBAQEEAQEBAQEBAQERDoVtgkeCWIUQgjiCWgWPLIpJAoNBgXaKOYFuh3qGBocKiV8eNoMdHIFvH4d6AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,415,1470700800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="154607190"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Sep 2016 16:52:27 +0000
Received: from [10.129.24.63] ([10.129.24.63]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u8TGqQ2l015296; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:52:27 GMT
References: <CABkgnnXMKKQnH4zg=Y276itOkgc84Ty1f9miCsii-UP9MuOwbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: json@ietf.org
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <CABkgnnXMKKQnH4zg=Y276itOkgc84Ty1f9miCsii-UP9MuOwbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d0925f87-1a4a-48e5-610a-c2bc23c92cd0@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:52:25 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXMKKQnH4zg=Y276itOkgc84Ty1f9miCsii-UP9MuOwbA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pIiCuVlVsD9X0Bjk9qnJ1LTnfwWhe7l9Q"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/DPyAdAFyeLgJ9Ipd2aYB4S1iPiA>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Subject: [Json] Fwd: Re: Extra Review of rfc7159bis?
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:52:46 -0000
Here is an additional review of rfc7159bis that was received off-list from Martin Thomson. -----BEGIN REVIEW----- Firstly, why is this written as though it were an update on 4627? Does 7159 not exist? Section 6. Should this say that the exponent is a base-10 exponent. It's sort of implied, I guess. Is there any issue with leading zeros on the exponent, 1e00000 is valid apparently. Section 8.1. The MUST-strength stipulation that this be UTF-8, -16, or -32 is not strictly consistent with -404. That document only requires that the text be Unicode codepoints. That goal can be achieved with ASCII encoding. To that end, it would be reasonable to exclude -32 from this, or even add -7. Did the working group discuss this point? Section 8.2. Paving the way to DoS attacks here, aren't you? Editorial: Hiding the examples at the bottom isn't cool. -----END REVIEW-----
- [Json] Fwd: Re: Extra Review of rfc7159bis? Matt Miller