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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 EB9E51A011C for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 Z6Y-uae19ep7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A4C1A0118 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-024-211-197-136.nc.res.rr.com [24.211.197.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s24EHOgn023398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:17:24 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1393942646; bh=OGHtlqd0nXcznnVcMz96rNZnuHQqemWOdWPAc4pZfIc=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Reply-To; b=oZDMTH7u5yoGWu7TioG/lBLkbHiagLx15xOD/gF+Z7Uu5WlSPZBA64KCCb8u0gpKq nqBbLZ80fpqeBwmtWkXjllRduWES34m6how6OfBNH8JuXp3eKLWQxetSUDcq9A9ej5 pQLk22P/yeMFusKiacu/BpUhsu0+9+/IP2AJVAQw=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:17:37 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <v687h9pv3q3tpodgrq01c9ogt1oe9cilbs@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Message-Id: <em61529801-b018-4a14-a62e-4524edd10381@sydney>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.19861.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Zu5ArUJOt0RCfOsXLZBwBrIBom8
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 06:51:40 -0800
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
Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
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 14:17:41 -0000

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