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

David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Wed, 10 June 2020 14:50 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 1D4BA3A0045 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:50:18 -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 Tbd6ibdZDIAp for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:50:16 -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 B9F703A005B for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x242.google.com with SMTP id x18so2853656lji.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:50:15 -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=5BjEUWeavWJN6pY0gayfF2yp2hpwp8EII5UGuR6N0cc=; b=qd26vEgth47xF7R4p06+0tY17XzSU7u5KSseRQ95/gaKrOQubE0BnpjJfceqNpBK8k QBXcxcON8PGvqR7oLgcJj1aPB6VjDyxbpF25p2YewYE11HxrCBAQ2bIuCUG7ZGzH+Dc6 +OA98gBSEpa2HwwhaxBIaTfxwxUcP9qQXoDSkGrSk42r+A5juMS3h9Z/bwgEubQeBGpv 1PEJXvbHPuZKfQdi/kp9HYH4beYUAK0iX8psMbPJf6wdauu9+h2bUVAHAGMcKksD4U7F N91iZUwHweeaY5HUxPCDeSplUH0y3b5jQRX90osthHhhBypMGnNUC85DY5l916i7dkBZ nDBg==
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=5BjEUWeavWJN6pY0gayfF2yp2hpwp8EII5UGuR6N0cc=; b=NLcj3gsVaC1Z2aAHBYd65LSzo/JTxyp+76Z1ak6/U8ShWCiWl4puI7lu9o6VuVppvJ x/F4Hyj6a5a3BdisCXcSB65u5he3gF+KEDbB9IcAIoAzJJ+PzMppcvsQ/GzLQu0B1k7O 2YWmuaEfi+qiKvRziKm1qI8SQGRzco/9pDHWG+3z/MtmwpKFZUDVhzw/JnQ8Rvx4ihJm XUX+2RwCcc6QF1HauDlqnBUUwsLMrsX82fk+9SSWzNNk2YZymjkAEs5xkaYauoIXftHc mzRlhz2+CGD8/6N1IRDtpIGw+42ET3DAFsO8PN3Na9Af6dxTqkMyUfk0Rl/yiCGFtpM9 LvFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532f3nc5ZQb1ACWYJ1VIdk3nvvJE/Ll2kGPLxTWTjZlPfMn5JLD0 /DlLx53NtREej8xZMX4KdZZXNk707K2DzuOgAj1Zog==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/Gdnn1ywuekU02Dr0BfB6EvfSQ4dZjcwLl003z+loOCab8CyFcMnDOY4S8FlZjXxHsSpICfnMMZ1aCp4P6ig=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b5c8:: with SMTP id g8mr2194528ljn.61.1591800613743; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200610133258.D4B85F4073D@rfc-editor.org> <19B4CC94-8752-46AF-95A2-6BB25E480A24@tzi.org> <CAOeq1c_SW1WwHZPMwunWPh3W53vCZThvEUuhb5Y1_NnbT6s=ng@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+6zVXRW-PoXrXL4NaNyNBkd=gaN6M0Y2x0czFe_EGC4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+6zVXRW-PoXrXL4NaNyNBkd=gaN6M0Y2x0czFe_EGC4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:49:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOeq1c98Ay5z1EBXgCq3T7KmRR6+osMp+VnL0-JBnsqt_hf25A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net>, json@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022c54a05a7bbf6ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/mmWIFNNhl2v5UbvRXOluVuUp8y0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:51:10 -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 14:50:18 -0000

I understand.  Would it be more appropriate then to limit the "may ignore a
BOM" to "may ignore a UTF-8 BOM" so that the interop suggestion does not
inadvertently encourage incorrect decoding?  That would be consistent with
the UTF-8 only restriction and leave legacy encoding/BOM considerations out
of scope.

I realize this may seem picky, but this stems from discussions at work
about whether/how to support legacy BOMs and people have interpreted the
RFC differently.  I was hoping to create clarity consistent with the intent
of the working group, whatever that turns out to be.

David

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:42 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
wrote:

> David, I understand that it might be worth having further discussion
> about the issue.  The problem *here* is that there is not an error in
> the RFC: the RFC accurately reflects the consensus of the working
> group and the text that was reviewed and agreed on at the time.  So
> it's not in scope for an errata report.  Discussion about whether or
> not to revisit this and to publish an RFC that says something
> different is... a separate discussion.
>
> Barry, ART AD
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:38 AM David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>


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