Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1C91A021C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 PkBSstzkP6f3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4421A01FE for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id lc6so449571vcb.10 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:36:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YpGrUjN9xywWn+aRZnEB9l1znVLj6c6PAl0OrFM+7PQ=; b=IixZi/HQyJnBIl2H4JfKFjHxAON9m8VqqfaDlJl4imQ+JNaqMI/hR0OweH+u0AyKZf tQ8zaTO+NMwhBlpAh+ISFzlVsUpIKVySIvQweNcVmx/Rl4MQXtRX9QLWLvxkBshbxwNX bEev1w9w2iIN3vyaXgoSjfTCgCiHrqkCUwmTAt2llim/O5WXEyO0Xyr5Zo7oXbEdEOkc 46HR+NRzabgi2koDAwRzpzbl24vghmdLSpnnqpfKCTevyRaYu2AouwCk/6ybI+3SBcPI tfHmfNZ99y5cDApewGpo60nMNdagDprvmIew2z5uOSyuwl2qQzDAsa2lJX3g9BgemW5T 4Isw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn7Lfk3Sq2YNuyIwWXIKg6wRWV8gtlNIzlxq2ro02c1v5PDOlbAmdog/hDOlqpp9sNavxFb
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.103.141 with SMTP id k13mr418660vco.25.1393954071139; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:27:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [130.129.159.69]
In-Reply-To: <em61529801-b018-4a14-a62e-4524edd10381@sydney>
References: <v687h9pv3q3tpodgrq01c9ogt1oe9cilbs@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <em61529801-b018-4a14-a62e-4524edd10381@sydney>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:27:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivCDjZ2rLP6XZws2aUR8_c+5L6qL2RmHNEJCRkg2NS5rg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b342d303e97c804f3cb39a6
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/K5FiG09CqC71N07d4WNOxiUp8O0
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, Matthew Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, rfc7158@schmorp.de, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:36:08 -0000

On this issue, also please read the interoperability note in the paragraph
before the new production.


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> I've not been following the list closely, as I thought this was more of an
> editorial exercise than anything else.  This is definitely more than
> editorial.  This could definitely break things and the commenter is right
> that there are instances where there could be misinterpretation.
>
> Why was it decided to change this:
>
>     JSON-text = object / array
>
> to
>
>     JSON-text = ws value ws
>
> Was there some misunderstanding of what 4627 said?
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
> To: "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: presnick@qti.qualcomm.com; paul.hoffman@vpnc.org; json@ietf.org;
> tbray@textuality.com; mamille2@cisco.com; barryleiba@computer.org;
> rfc7158@schmorp.de; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> Sent: 3/2/2014 4:31:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
>
>  * RFC Errata System wrote:
>>
>>> Since RFC7158 breaks compatibility with the specifications, this should
>>> be
>>> duly noted.
>>>
>>
>> It is in Appendix A., "Changes from RFC 4627":
>>
>>    o Changed the definition of "JSON text" so that it can be any JSON
>>       value, removing the constraint that it be an object or array.
>>
>> Failing to note this in the Introduction is not ideal, but the errata
>> system is not a good place to record that (holding it for document up-
>> date probably does not make sense, if and when the document does get
>> updated, this particular issue will not require prominent notice).
>> --
>> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
>> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
>> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> json mailing list
>> json@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>>
>
>