Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"

"Matthew A. Miller" <> Tue, 18 July 2017 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587AF131D2B for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.88
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsOHgVhaUSck for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 501AB131A69 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w4so17866860wrb.2 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=sender:subject:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SVv9+OXsKQv4SGxulpPKDmypUYfNYvPyDjzR9zWtkIw=; b=m4w0Pcm0qhnPq6GuMqxQPJTu0frrdI9Rvdmg6CpzBbVPVgIMMIuRD86Rgfza8/K/Cn RPSyPIHHt1fW9pgHAirjOC/7YnN0Ww+//RJABxIlfUj9zv7TlJ9EHL9kfs8BvV7EJ44y m3B+7s45H1SQ1UXEM+gTUR2HUmLjG8V2h2ddnMCIn8WM4l+ivO5S7Kl4EVRz2RsiKjdT FgwMaYQAXyMViylZYRpmGcSnpEcBwotQJ4NgQ/obkhZ6G0V0RFrBVEH4w/x4uBGjfMDK DPFEi06BFUm7SdEmjpW/+ByS/4DQ8AwPM01nepYNAsOprUMxDVyIeYRwG4wSXyApLwMW 5+Vg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SVv9+OXsKQv4SGxulpPKDmypUYfNYvPyDjzR9zWtkIw=; b=GPE4ERKSc5byJ4dmNKI7BdTdkWQGIItpgCj86F6MUoYnnyZUEFfOGpYuJdASJDA1ff A4i5igqHqLHCuqxFRnZaquF0Wbf3gfdwixVPvM2GuutH4gLDkdI1CSqM7npifMgyUeTL LpvouWiL1be1FpHiMXDHZu0nAlh8sxdTh+sjR3koTlVPa8KFCPvTg8h+sTM5mLsWZ0kb /uNh4oxjOVa15NNG5g/HQUzIuZ9thj0eOesdpEe+OBELIrvjcAOA+SLD8FMMWONOC0nA b3rWzuYYKFx6wgg+DtpR/cJmAM/j+uykA1jXkLZ+s7HiMvVrjmbdMysrOYEEMoubIcK4 +JkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111EpEgQmE+PH/qN21QTp3qYEFBB4q9q/2nyHSz9NZrgtII9bAij qChTkf4iM5sND1BJyWCAmQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h63mr838934wmh.124.1500366465515; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:2526:a529:43c2:fb61? ([2001:67c:370:128:2526:a529:43c2:fb61]) by with ESMTPSA id j31sm876127wre.67.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Matthew Miller <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <20170417175627.GK23461@localhost> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Matthew A. Miller" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:27:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/54.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PpDNJw8fFpkcL9RnhrOqwuB8NxpfNtIiC"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Json] Call for Consensus: Proposed Text for "8.1 Character Encoding"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 08:27:49 -0000

Hello all,

I see consensus for the updated text below.  A note to the RFC editor is
added to ensure publication does not move forward until section 8.1 is
updated, and the change noted in the appendix.

8.1.  Character Encoding

When transmitting over a network protocol, or as a payload of a
network protocol intended to be interpreted as part of a protocol,
JSON text MUST be encoded in UTF-8 (Section 3 of [UNICODE]).

Previous specifications of JSON have not required the use of UTF-8
when transmitting JSON text. However, the vast majority of
JSON-based software implementations have chosen to use the UTF-8
encoding, to the extent that it is the only encoding that achieves

Implementations MUST NOT add a byte order mark (U+FEFF) to the
beginning of a networked-transmitted JSON text.  In the interests
of interoperability, implementations that parse JSON texts MAY
ignore the presence of a byte order mark rather than treating it
as an error.

Thank you all that participated in the discussion.

- m&m

Matthew A. Miller
JSONbis Chair