Re: [Json] secdir review of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03 [rfc7159bis scope]

["Matthew A. Miller" <[e-mail]>]

On 17/03/16 07:32, Peter Cordell wrote:
> On 16/03/2017 12:38, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> On 16 Mar 2017, at 11:35, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017-03-16 12:23, Peter Cordell wrote:
>>>>> On 16/03/2017 10:49, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-03-16 11:28, Peter Cordell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8.1.  Character Encoding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   JSON text SHOULD be encoded in UTF-8 [UNICODE] (Section 3).  JSON
>>>>>>   texts that are encoded in UTF-8 are interoperable in the sense that
>>>>>>   they will be read successfully by the maximum number of
>>>>>>   implementations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   There are many implementations that cannot successfully read texts
>>>>>>   in other encodings.  JSON text MAY be encoded in other encodings if
>>>>>>   the generator is sure that the intended parsers can read them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Implementations MUST NOT add a byte order mark to the beginning
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>   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.
>>>>>>
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>> Not convinced.
>>>>>
>>>>> a) It's not constrained to UTF-8/16/32, so people might decide to
>>>>> support ISO-8859-1, or UTF-7-
>>>>
>>>> Why is that a problem if the generator knows the parser can read
>>>> it?  If
>>>> someone wants to use EBCDIC for whatever reason, are they not
>>>> allowed to
>>>> call it JSON?
> 
> ...
> 
>> As this document is intended to be Internet Standard, it should strive
>> to remove number of choices and generally non interoperable features.
>> So listing the minimal list of allowed encodings in this document
>> would be a good thing.
> 
> 
> I see rfc7159bis as a more generic description of JSON that may have
> applicability more periphery to the actual data bytes sent on the
> Internet.  As such it echoes the scope of ECMA-404.
> 
> I see I-JSON as the place to constrain things for the actual data on the
> Internet.
> 
> In some respects it would be nice to move the JSON MIME type from
> rfc7159bis to I-JSON, but since the MIME type is also applicable beyond
> describing bytes on the Internet it's not quite doable.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pete Cordell
> Codalogic Ltd
> Rules for Describing JSON Content, http://json-content-rules.org
> 

Overall I think your text, in spirit, lines up with the consensus of the
working group.

While I am generally sympathetic to accommodation, I don't think there
is support in the working group for expanding the allowed encodings
beyond what RFC 7159 already stated.


- m&m

Matthew A. Miller