IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Proposed Wording for New WG Charter

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 3ECC51A0717 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] 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 b3LXIzbAGyWy for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (agjbgdcfdbed.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E561A0720 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B532005D10B for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=/9bjR0scAy/PPHCj7xafPyEvdhk=; b=voZ8nTLcecq wSwKrKLLE5XG6o7KtqGi1kd51WOPjajY5yDRoQ+osna8j1AoaJOXvpadYW/2S5iV TQ4GyVdl04LQVvnWmPgnUGeV66RghjDEy+fSDwwt6Vo7lsTHrGtLlNLxxqrlJ5Ep yhlTpbZ6wqPezuNSNTkUxnZ0WgRn4zBI=
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a106.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 651BC2005D107 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p61so6217032wes.27 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d2aaKweKRez/ZqOrTykL7zqcKMLSIko1kjMke0wSUk0=; b=EyTdlnoYOB1xuOtNfw9qG37ERjOPgZR/di+4Tz6ohFtTzwMpsayZcup0VtLY5iIM8e QOwCd/jBxeiOKP4O7ncVJJcLQ4hx+yyHyvvHhA8hA/XbgI08kf/J9UwNaNj+6DN1T8oY KV6qYxtenJcRqi1QP7f4/jueEM5HlwT8GOjkAkNcMVkDDOacZN5lv60P/WNtq6gx87u+ ChWKAY8VAXmtmEmykZnnidIt3wX43k10BWc50IyPBFE6ljfN6g1w0p5vKHSVZIDhHKQZ HuQexTZJBzCs7qwFNFSyC2xDuuNOjjHOpYPEaqHKnqPRTOJmpoQFixUixrYBUQMgSsUL KV7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.98.35 with SMTP id ef3mr15706696wib.39.1395162288129; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.199.6 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53287443.2060405@gmx.de>
References: <53277484.70305@cisco.com> <5327F05E.7060905@gmx.de> <EC3168FE-EA36-4036-8B36-974FDA7BD88E@vpnc.org> <532864FC.8040700@gmx.de> <CE6D04D1-C063-41E6-A635-3AD8127B6F28@vpnc.org> <5328687D.9050509@gmx.de> <CAHBU6ivhKzENAEkm174=o=QYs8Xj1BS4Rfw0CX_C6bnNP2riNw@mail.gmail.com> <53286A3E.3000907@gmx.de> <53286BE2.3020409@cisco.com> <82F6EE3B-B659-460C-AD1C-7303D4F53333@tzi.org> <53287443.2060405@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:04:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhr8zFRymyhj4Vk3qKdPsNZuKeZetHPBH=Jpb2vOaPCfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/z3U-KQ2rRWKGTlvq0lH8MyDMEkw
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] Proposed Wording for New WG Charter
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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:05:40 -0000

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-03-18 17:19, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Mar 2014, at 16:53, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Teams I have worked with are already making use of json-merge-patch,
>>
>>
>> Are they using exactly what’s in the draft right now (including the
>> somewhat surprising purge_nulls semantics)?
>> It would help to get some feedback from actual users of this.
>> ...

I had the same question.  That's not the only problem.  Suppose I have
a 100KB JSON text and I want to make a minor change.  But there's no
way with the proposed JSON merge to say "add this item to that array"
without listing all the values that should remain, so this merge spec
isn't very patch-y.

> q.e.d. :-)

Well played!  I'm now +1 on accepting this.

One Rails app I work with has a schema for PUT that allows for
patching, effectively, but its patch syntax is very specific to that
application (although it may come from a gem for all I know; I'll try
to find out).  I'm not remotely sold on the currently proposed JSON
merge spec, but at least one -possibly various- JSON PATCH mechanisms
is needed.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email