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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 10 June 2020 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 468803A08F6 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 z0W8OLpuuFbI for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-f176.google.com (mail-il1-f176.google.com [209.85.166.176]) (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 E35603A08F3 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-f176.google.com with SMTP id h3so2084815ilh.13 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8DgVhWjlsu8bpg1rxMTkfIr+v4Iz1geCT9yS6TiZq1A=; b=a3QPLEspnj2A002wMyuP1kcWh7VNKJreEz3HJH19ojNUra2CkD6wAssMMs3wRcz0Ha DrIedDMgbsxXgK8F6FCK2ApTJSkNgTq0+lR6QXQrnmMN2oFWP+IKvltyChAn0FygE1AD uemYvZB7stKfahXRYNqlb4mh7NQJxL9SrjPVZ9VpzkUqI6nU3TYWjEq/xQZ+Ua/8m+aw 3tYzPTwTFgVxrzx28v7Gq3e9h4bH7pMDmHF0ja6QakrqXtWkEMjLfLwF1j+EA0V++FOr pJSdRC7A5SUcRequNtX0llAaUq5OYSyWYUgRlgQkj3dE0jVRbHzEazVToe+Okl/tVEO/ vuBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532joQuHXLiWNV0Hm3t8pMrpnE9+MRZPmjK14Cz0+yOqsWUDtbfl uUKTKCKBJiSlBC9C2XJRLfvuBJ+m4hK+oQ9icwXvhEYN
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7CeXT7gAmlryckRbF27ofaykS9LeHrMHHIbDrIbrkLcItpLi1Gu0LJNDiYO4OPjOex2NljnjxSjWGy3zSyos=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:10c:: with SMTP id t12mr3183503ilm.187.1591799856849; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200610133258.D4B85F4073D@rfc-editor.org> <19B4CC94-8752-46AF-95A2-6BB25E480A24@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <19B4CC94-8752-46AF-95A2-6BB25E480A24@tzi.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:37:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKB1k8pedARtwV5LvOHj7kCuQXYgBUZWNHH=7+byQR-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: 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>, xdg@xdg.me, json@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/zdE9G_7GI2jQFTKZs6lSAj6Kyqw>
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 14:37:39 -0000

Yes, I agree: this is asking to revisit what we had consensus on, not
reporting an error in the RFC.  Off to reject it now.

Barry

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:44 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
>