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

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Fri, 07 March 2014 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.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 0A0741A00FC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:09:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 7NCjuPBFH3Yb for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:09:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8251A00EB for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 05:09:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4641; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394197772; x=1395407372; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Rb8YtZraeASqdlN92C+NXfHcI3p7cAEkByMC3v+FmLU=; b=SFgesEesNLZFCHZ5LWuatM1yYaj7rJb/K0OeLSvnAPPy8Arg8+RDOjS7 CWRWSyS+YlAhq8FkHuXUW6yeIv4Mpf+hT/4DP7jbfcuWARBFdnWtneSO5 NGiur2ujPVeeJhRE+QVwf85t/rBqyRExv1pzAuxaLdNjUGY+1AS3XKwSW M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFADLEGVOtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8EmgRMWdIIlAQEBBAEBAWsLDAQCAQgRBAEBAScHJwsUCQgCBAENBYdlAxENz1IXjESBZDMHBoQyBIkYjyuBMpB5gy2CKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,607,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="308690367"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2014 13:09:32 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s27D9Vmh002204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:09:31 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.151]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:09:31 -0600
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Thread-Topic: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
Thread-Index: AQHPN7R+OZJOXM0/ykGBbx4BwkPKfZrRk0+AgAAuEoCABEC9gA==
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:09:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CF3F74B5.3CE74%jhildebr@cisco.com>
References: <CAHBU6ivCDjZ2rLP6XZws2aUR8_c+5L6qL2RmHNEJCRkg2NS5rg@mail.gmail.com> <em36b68433-9adf-4d3e-8035-a8c1b5b0e60f@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <em36b68433-9adf-4d3e-8035-a8c1b5b0e60f@sydney>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.21.88.62]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <F3C38FA6EBF0B1468F7699C89294793B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/djGzUMHRGPwsOFOehkATzP3X1t4
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 08:34:10 -0800
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "rfc7158@schmorp.de" <rfc7158@schmorp.de>, RFC Errata System <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
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: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:09:39 -0000

Paul: ECMA's version of JSON has allowed anything at the top level for
quite a while.  The WG explicitly decided that having the two specs in
sync was more important to us than the backward-compatility issue, which
we documented.  This isn't a "mistake" in the sense that we didn't know it
was happening - it was the consensus of the people who were participating.


On 3/4/14 8:12 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

>Tim,
> 
>Yeah, I saw that.  However, I still think this only opens the door for
>future implementations to produce things that do not work reliably.  As
>Marc Lehmann rightfully pointed out (and, BTW, his Errata text appears to
>have disappeared), a serializer that
> is requested to serialize a series of integers like 1 and 999 might
>produce 1999.  Reading that back in, the single value 1999 would be read.
> Likewise, a serializer might produce truefalse as output, but then fail
>when one tries to read that back.  One might
> argue to start all serialization with whitespace to avoid having values
>serialized adjacent to each other.  That would work, but unfortunate.
> 
>Maybe I missed it, but I could not see _why_ the change was made to this
>production.  What was wrong with allowing only an object or array?
> 
>Looking at some of the messages hanging off of the link Björn provided, I
>can see people are worried, too, about the BOM.  The previous text made
>it very clear how to determine whether the text is UTF-16LE or UTF-16BE,
>for example.  That text seems to
> have disappeared.  Is there a reason?  I think the same approach spelled
>out in Section 3 of RFC 4627 would still work, no?
> 
>Paul
> 
>------ Original Message ------
>From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
>To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
>Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>et>; "RFC Errata System"
><rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>r.org>; "Pete Resnick" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>om>;
> "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>rg>; "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>rg>;
>"Matthew Miller" <mamille2@cisco.com>om>; "Barry Leiba"
><barryleiba@computer.org>r.org>;
>rfc7158@schmorp.de
>Sent: 3/4/2014 12:27:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
> 
>
>On this issue, also please read the interoperability note in the
>paragraph before the new production.
>
>
>On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Paul E. Jones
><paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
>
>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 <mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>; json@ietf.org;
>tbray@textuality.com <mailto:tbray@textuality.com>; mamille2@cisco.com;
>barryleiba@computer.orgorg;
>rfc7158@schmorp.de <mailto: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 <http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de/>
>Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon:
>+49(0)160/4415681 <tel:%2B49%280%29160%2F4415681> ·
>http://www.bjoernsworld.de <http://www.bjoernsworld.de/>
>25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·
>http://www.websitedev.de/ <http://www.websitedev.de/>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>json mailing list
>json@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Joe Hildebrand