Re: [Json] secdir review of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03 [rfc7159bis scope]

Peter Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <petejson@codalogic.com>
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 A53001294E7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 3WUXAVDqInXh for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsa-online.com (lvps217-199-162-192.vps.webfusion.co.uk [217.199.162.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E57011294EC for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5237 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2017 13:25:17 +0000
Received: from host109-158-230-32.range109-158.btcentralplus.com (HELO ?192.168.1.72?) (109.158.230.32) by lvps217-199-162-217.vps.webfusion.co.uk with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 16 Mar 2017 13:25:17 +0000
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <otwresf20y4vnpmoboqqjnux.1489359742487@email.android.com> <0d3258fa-0f9d-cc5d-06d7-fcba943349ad@gmx.de> <f63c6a4a-dfbb-e03a-ea1e-38002f81ced8@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <0631d12c-f447-8904-6e2d-81e02cc6e8d3@codalogic.com> <1e075450-d958-db9c-ae63-3cbf3733024c@outer-planes.net> <cf6e35ba-6a67-4b35-d4e1-e99fee6e9f19@gmx.de> <1F1D1DCB-767F-490D-A425-AB5E66D51D3E@tzi.org> <CAD2gp_R7raq0mzfhATTYONdowBm0HvVHFAqJqoVcLmYABrgPpA@mail.gmail.com> <c20a17b7-0329-db5b-0983-23ebe11720f2@codalogic.com> <1f87f5d4-cbb0-9350-2d08-31350fa7438d@gmx.de> <24d37dc6-eee2-5e0c-6d33-d3450750e886@codalogic.com> <d520cf1f-bafd-6f62-c46c-482ad3a01f20@gmx.de> <EAF23716-FC94-478C-ACCF-9ED58B8A0ADF@fastmail.fm>
Cc: draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis.all@ietf.org, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
From: Peter Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
Message-ID: <2b6f5439-18d1-9b7b-97e9-c683187ce452@codalogic.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:32:32 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EAF23716-FC94-478C-ACCF-9ED58B8A0ADF@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/xdyeyO5OfFhRjIO5HbQwdGLXu_A>
Subject: Re: [Json] secdir review of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03 [rfc7159bis scope]
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:32:38 -0000

On 16/03/2017 12:38, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2017, at 11:35, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-16 12:23, Peter Cordell wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2017 10:49, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-03-16 11:28, Peter Cordell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 8.1.  Character Encoding
>>>>>
>>>>>   JSON text SHOULD be encoded in UTF-8 [UNICODE] (Section 3).  JSON
>>>>>   texts that are encoded in UTF-8 are interoperable in the sense that
>>>>>   they will be read successfully by the maximum number of
>>>>>   implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>>   There are many implementations that cannot successfully read texts
>>>>>   in other encodings.  JSON text MAY be encoded in other encodings if
>>>>>   the generator is sure that the intended parsers can read them.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Implementations MUST NOT add a byte order mark to the beginning of a
>>>>>   JSON 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.
>>>>>

...

>>>> Not convinced.
>>>>
>>>> a) It's not constrained to UTF-8/16/32, so people might decide to
>>>> support ISO-8859-1, or UTF-7-
>>>
>>> Why is that a problem if the generator knows the parser can read it?  If
>>> someone wants to use EBCDIC for whatever reason, are they not allowed to
>>> call it JSON?

...

> As this document is intended to be Internet Standard, it should strive to remove number of choices and generally non interoperable features. So listing the minimal list of allowed encodings in this document would be a good thing.


I see rfc7159bis as a more generic description of JSON that may have 
applicability more periphery to the actual data bytes sent on the 
Internet.  As such it echoes the scope of ECMA-404.

I see I-JSON as the place to constrain things for the actual data on the 
Internet.

In some respects it would be nice to move the JSON MIME type from 
rfc7159bis to I-JSON, but since the MIME type is also applicable beyond 
describing bytes on the Internet it's not quite doable.

Regards,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Rules for Describing JSON Content, http://json-content-rules.org