Re: [Json] RFC 4627bis vs RFC 6902 (JSON Patch)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 20 February 2014 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 E49361A022D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:37:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 YY0s7JTEWxck for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08871A019F for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2E83B80A8 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:35:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=e3f4+jFxUb2V20BFCTvw KIapWF0=; b=nDmvzenxuhdDYv1vX+p7geWFl3gRIg9vvZZoBcngp7fI1dzcAePI GOPBsU/pjmSBccLUA9szB6tj2xGr2/KQ8WrGbFmQPgxTwovillNWcIKco5cDYVeB 4QrqxJq75vasyn8nufN25wBnX7ezWmIBmbDAMga6FyrlpeAF7PG0oLg=
Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com [209.85.220.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CBB53B8099 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id hz1so2243354pad.36 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vCMZm5GEfzkbGs9gy5rRBhRD4zvwMYeljhtlasfEjsU=; b=MG/wCJ68JNf4o8/NWn0/Ud/6BZPMPu17M2vglWSqBa0tpsltoGFcbFoHG25yH1RtyW 57wIRyeyez1NgimGPZrAsMPOVpQsmJlsJ4/9Ahn5QheV5ZnFVLRX5WncXHv2woT9gjuj 8/ZXSzRv7IzVz82ZlgCZw27W58+nex2feS/o5Ks5yh+un5aMAu1XaPhCnJ+3mxvPWhpu hqAMHO680K5Mb3qdR3ihr0ohGTMIBayoibh6qRKISkiR8XQNyf6OA6Ppb2jGwaKB5jfd xOzFYgQ9iIeDgv0yF1eyDsMir2MBb6au84gINNvnjb03b6jvxIceIgpHA+CSBf+kzJqZ o1Cg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.69.19.139 with SMTP id gu11mr3692402pbd.149.1392921037340; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.36.164 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:30:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBAi9bvcnctLVHqaC0HDeJ-+rf1AyoaFu5vpE2oEE7+Nnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcybBCTih9A6RL=r4WYrqf05rHsjgF4tEJP3cTY2FAmONRQaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhp1C7724Qgwj98SMd0fupLdEWSGM16D6ZA8CD-ik7LvA@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBAi9bvcnctLVHqaC0HDeJ-+rf1AyoaFu5vpE2oEE7+Nnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:30:37 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOheRGj=pNZodDOPf_MknMq5Y=_hOwmUyPhie5aFVbbyGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/MNVSejnp8L-_HKamfAuMhCcplUY
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] RFC 4627bis vs RFC 6902 (JSON Patch)
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:37:11 -0000

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, then what about constraints on JSON emission instead? RFC 4627bis
> section 10 does mention that any emitted JSON must be conform to the
> grammar; can't a condition be added that in the case of JSON objects,
> they SHOULD ensure about the uniqueness of member names?

The same issues apply here.  For example, online encoders by
definition don't keep sufficient state.

Also, the

> Admittely, I can live with the texts as they currently stands; it is
> just that this shadowy area leaves an acrid aftertaste in my mouth,
> that's all ;)

If you even skim the list archives you'll find you're not alone.
You'll also find why RFC4627bis had to end up the way it did.

Nico
--