IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7159 (3983)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 09 May 2014 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 E7AF91A01FF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 QWGKZErLvzCC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB761A01FD for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 00:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s497mSO1012083; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:48:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p5489256C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.37.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4C60122B; Fri, 9 May 2014 09:48:27 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140509072901.9041718000D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 09:48:26 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 421314506.161409-df77f40deb38ffe769e4b5639ef18cbe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A84E7204-E054-4849-B07F-4A937A446CEE@tzi.org>
References: <20140509072901.9041718000D@rfc-editor.org>
To: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/wWImYlUcVY4tL9-onBYeB9xftoI
Cc: alainb06@free.fr
Subject: Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7159 (3983)
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, 09 May 2014 07:48:40 -0000

The grammar in RFC 7159 is correct as it is; this errata should be rejected.
There has been strong consensus in the WG that JSON texts do not include byte order marks.
A license for receivers to be tolerant of a certain class of errors does not change this.

For clarification, If we ever get to issue another RFC, instead of:

> (...) implementations that parse JSON texts *MAY* ignore the presence of a byte order mark rather than treating it as an error.

we maybe should write:

> (...) implementations that parse JSON texts *MAY* ignore the presence of a byte order mark in front of a JSON text rather than treating it as an error.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email