Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8259 (6208)

David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Wed, 10 June 2020 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <xdg@xdg.me>
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 DF4603A08F3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=xdg-me.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 RrTQCbHQkoXo for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x242.google.com (mail-lj1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85E9B3A08EF for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x242.google.com with SMTP id n23so2769286ljh.7 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xdg-me.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NXqOLy3qqrTFvAmrxCBpQ85Vvdz8B/Ms45CuYq0pTbI=; b=gGjb5REXAIKCHJkR+7swfcNkrTqFH3TCdYV4omLaTy0hmRUU+97bKtLuvwOMEFD95Q g39mpjkW9uQJcNS8MNSQq/UN05qxOzguxAoaRqaJw62HJL+R6ir1NvsuanDOayK/9nQm AFs+W3i6esvhIalr8JAXK47cu/Q2DTvgyDARf50/NJ6Gh2qI0hxUb3AGMwQErSRF4tgr RpmVgvegj3ZT0q5QegJOnfQGWC+HuBiFsCrsAOTKXwWPz18rE7BYnWnLGQpzcCEjNUhp Jpe0HYmAlGhNShALIzLuc63Yn8qP92rJgSZ99ecuDsxnO1tbzchbNpnEne5yiJoxyBAO WkVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NXqOLy3qqrTFvAmrxCBpQ85Vvdz8B/Ms45CuYq0pTbI=; b=LtgbPPvVuhfa3C6bTnd9CxuuxbbkS5SBbwjWTcqV/NZfKV3uxIMSVVFa+qrjgYSKQb aEfSnD9odmIFPm7Ppbk4DFJctIM5hFDGV8aAOP2BElNIfupN59oMYoP1qM9suxZPoorN Cyv+pETJyhvFTpAy8Gkf1dAfWKT2Z+g23OeGkbyfZmBPi2OFGS4I9qeEi10tyDm+NzKd IHTvYiQudyUxs38WcMuhNdUanIkyH/ObpegjN3hk95BUw5hR54LetoC+n17GSliMeUG4 qenAoE6xoFxkzTMgpjBJrUXG81BfQscQUu8eb7LVwRSmEyXw9MlzgQ6w9vTOQzCd6d6C mVHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321n8XNNusdBV8gm9JicrwBE5PfFvD2d6dP0oTF8ox9zyYQYiKj bYHnud81DPA0NhmFLyqyPlX1ocOThlXU5REojlVB4w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyeTbcwatVcWgcBFIpUE9vQ3lwTAH35a2MkEEhYNQyxcQSC+/qHgR27wjqyAC6XW4s+ZeYtIEYBbS6YZVjkIL0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6a05:: with SMTP id f5mr2018062ljc.272.1591799892520; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200610133258.D4B85F4073D@rfc-editor.org> <19B4CC94-8752-46AF-95A2-6BB25E480A24@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <19B4CC94-8752-46AF-95A2-6BB25E480A24@tzi.org>
From: David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:37:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOeq1c_SW1WwHZPMwunWPh3W53vCZThvEUuhb5Y1_NnbT6s=ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, tbray@textuality.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net, json@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025cdae05a7bbcbf3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/_nwDh05Y1Ru4YP20w9IzoiKKu-s>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:42:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8259 (6208)
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: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:40:12 -0000

I agree that BOMs don't belong on JSON, but three prior RFC allowed them.
(The first one even specified how to do so.)

Given a JSON text generated under a previous specification with a UTF-16/32
BOM, ignoring the BOM is incorrect behavior.  As currently written --
copied verbatim from the prior two RFCs when BOMs were legal -- the only
interoperability suggestion is to ignore a BOM.

My proposal does not encourage the use of BOMs or unravel the WG consensus
(which I fully support).  It merely prepares implementations for the
presence of other implementations that predate the current, more
restrictive specification.

Respectfully yours,
David

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:43 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> The WG had pretty strong consensus that BOMs don’t belong on JSON.
> This “MAY” prepares implementations for the presence of other
> implementations that do not heed that consensus.  No functionality is
> assigned by this MAY.
>
> Since Errata are not intended to unravel WG decisions: Reject.
>
> Apart from that, I seriously don’t understand what the "indicate an
> alternate encoding” would be — the JSON text already is UTF-8?
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
> > On 2020-06-10, at 15:32, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8259,
> > "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6208
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>
> >
> > Section: 8.1
> >
> > Original 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.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > In the interests of interoperability, implementations that parse JSON
> texts MAY ignore the presence of a byte order mark or MAY interpret a byte
> order mark to indicate an alternate encoding rather than treating it as an
> error.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The original line is copied from previous RFCs that specifically allowed
> alternate encodings.  In the context of a new, UTF-8 only restriction,
> interoperability provisions should also address interpreting legacy formats
> that predate the restriction.  By omission, readers may conclude that the
> *only* option for a BOM is to ignore or error.
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8259 (draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-04)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
> Interchange Format
> > Publication Date    : December 2017
> > Author(s)           : T. Bray, Ed.
> > Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
> > Source              : Javascript Object Notation Update
> > Area                : Applications and Real-Time
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > json mailing list
> > json@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>

-- 
David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>https://xdg.me/ • Twitter/GitHub: @xdg