Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-04.txt

Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com> Wed, 23 August 2017 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <petejson@codalogic.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 5F8C4132355 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 e3AKeN7YG_tF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsa-online.com (lvps217-199-162-192.vps.webfusion.co.uk [217.199.162.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4597C1320CF for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17373 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2017 12:00:55 +0100
Received: from host159-180-98-181.range159-180.btcentralplus.com (HELO ?192.168.1.72?) (159.180.98.181) by lvps217-199-162-217.vps.webfusion.co.uk with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 23 Aug 2017 12:00:55 +0100
To: "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>, json@ietf.org
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament <peter@filament.com>
References: <150047191184.7507.7143481683564082881@ietfa.amsl.com> <DB9BA7EA-D393-4079-B347-620A09280B26@isode.com> <CAC4RtVBYMrRCrUZ1qqD+_rH4M8N23GOgbbh=921fEYqH+gCm5Q@mail.gmail.com> <c06e583a-965e-9eaf-975f-e6876ac056ed@filament.com> <f1a6b553-c787-e248-67bd-74d68d98a845@gmx.de> <262E8314-263A-4443-B912-AFCF1A3277B2@tzi.org> <166957c4-26fc-90b5-a798-59280c91b466@filament.com> <8B60039F-96DD-4F72-8139-D80B6F11566C@tzi.org> <3760a157-5b88-e334-712c-03eecd675794@codalogic.com> <7a88952c-3e46-3f87-b3c2-2864f216c62d@gmail.com> <9cddf2e7-f987-3942-3580-05c3da6a4805@codalogic.com> <2892a0eb-0bd2-cd2e-87e7-aa2e29009b4b@filament.com> <62d58ceb-282d-329d-3f27-8ed5ef268d13@codalogic.com> <20320239-7afb-5d4a-047f-ae0132e2a0ca@outer-planes.net> <FBF7729E-40DD-4693-A08F-306E88F1FA75@vpnc.org> <5625f6c1-8f23-a0a9-63d8-059080299247@filament.com> <48bc8b78-8e55-b5a1-a897-be06730e6e86@outer-planes.net>
From: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
Message-ID: <7d1355f6-80b3-c5ff-2e2a-9c09943db0b7@codalogic.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:09:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <48bc8b78-8e55-b5a1-a897-be06730e6e86@outer-planes.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/KjtZDnAT94OM1kQ8tTyKqUJw6go>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-D Action: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:09:33 -0000

Thanks Matt and all for your patience on this issue and going the extra 
mile (or 2 or 3).  Hopefully it'll save some confusion for readers in 
the future.

Cheers,

Pete.

On 16/08/2017 04:01, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> Thanks you all.  We can take Pete Cordell's suggestions, with the
> reference corrected from [UNICODE] to [RFC3629]:
> 
> 
> """
> 8.1.  Character Encoding
> 
> JSON text exchanged between systems that are not part of a closed
> ecosystem MUST be encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629].
> 
> 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
> interoperability.
> 
> 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.
> """
> 
> Unless there are strong objections, this is the text we'll submit to the
> editor.
> 
> 
> - m&m
> 
> Matthew A. Miller
> 
> On 17/08/14 10:56, Peter Saint-Andre - Filament wrote:
>> On 8/14/17 10:50 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 14 Aug 2017, at 9:40, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/08/01 10:28, Pete Cordell wrote:
>>>>> On 01/08/2017 17:01, Peter Saint-Andre - Filament wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're not writing a novel here. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I had been thinking that too.  I do like the direction of focussing the
>>>>> requirement on open systems communication though (not to be confused
>>>>> with systems built on open software!).  I think the following is pretty
>>>>> simple and side-steps issues about what is a network protocol, payload,
>>>>> serialization etc.:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8.1.  Character Encoding
>>>>>
>>>>>     JSON text exchanged between systems that are not part of a closed
>>>>>     ecosystem MUST be encoded using UTF-8.
>>>>>
>>>>>     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
>>>>>     interoperability.
>>>>>
>>>>>     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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello JSONbis Working Group,
>>>>
>>>> does anyone have comments on Pete Cordell's suggested text?
>>>
>>> The current wording works for me, and so does Pete's.
>>
>> What Pete suggested seems good enough.
>>
>> Peter
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>