IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7493 (6861)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 25 February 2022 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 767523A0C41 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:00:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 la23EiOPgTDE for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9AEA3A12E5 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:00:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4K4wy16CN7zDCby; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:00:25 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <686AEC59-F051-49A2-A953-B26831E77C3D@vpnc.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:00:25 +0100
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, rfc7493-errata@chrismorgan.info, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 667501225.43809-0ab8b507ebe6450f7dcfbf532fed5944
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B1A9A76-4960-4410-A077-2F91734A54D4@tzi.org>
References: <20220225033322.ECC44289E1@rfc-editor.org> <CAHBU6iu7AdA8FQyCSOE5=-5wZJ590b0sYxmazFiTebDQUdUN9A@mail.gmail.com> <F6608CF3-AE49-4A0C-A222-1558A84C53A6@vpnc.org> <CAHBU6itDUPOpUU6z9tqUEj4+S8=pXjXeTYHU73_frEM211=EOw@mail.gmail.com> <686AEC59-F051-49A2-A953-B26831E77C3D@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Q0C79gNeODNC2x1rywF4G2nks8Y>
Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7493 (6861)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:00:54 -0000

On 2022-02-25, at 16:56, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
> I agree it would be stupid; it was also kinda stupid for us to have missed this in the creation of I-JSON. I am arguing agains the acceptance of this erratum from the standpoint of the long-established erratum rules, not from whether the proposed change is a good idea.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

This is clearly a case where the English words turn out not to express what the consensus of the WG was (*).  That needs to be fixed, and the fix is obvious to anyone skilled in the art.

Grüße, Carsten

(*) I’m pretty sure that in the record you will find expressions of the form “let’s get rid of invalid Unicode”, not of the form “let’s get rid of invalid Unicode except in top-level strings”.  The specific phrasing used may have made sense with RFC 4627, it doesn’t with 7159/8259.  Exactly errata material.  Not a technical change, as the literal implementation is obvious to an implementer to be broken, as Chris Morgan pointed out.  If something as absurd as “allowed on Tuesdays” is actually meant, a specification needs to spend a few cycles on reconfirming that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email