Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: jsonpath@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0902A1343C38 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:20:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.189 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sn_s9Ybv-8XV for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 747861343C33 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ZNpm30SjVzDCkk; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:20:18 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:20:17 +0100 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 764785217.447871-4ca4a0984750dbc767ac22960365042a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20250324144730.970D2210673@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org> <52840452-8f98-4da2-8bea-d62e70638616@hxr.us> <3FAB5B50-2CEB-4E62-BF0A-9108EE4AE51F@tzi.org> <397a85f4-b7db-4def-a811-3d61c280ad5f@hxr.us> To: "Andrew Newton (andy)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) Message-ID-Hash: APWWIJOP2DALVSM7PR2K4LUVMM52KYMD X-Message-ID-Hash: APWWIJOP2DALVSM7PR2K4LUVMM52KYMD X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Vladimir Gorej , RFC Errata System , stefan.goessner@fh-dortmund.de, glyn.normington@gmail.com, Orie Steele , james.ietf@gmail.com, Tim Bray , jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BJsonpath=5D_Re=3A_=5BTechnical_Errata_Reported=5D_RFC9535_=2883?= =?utf-8?q?43=29?= List-Id: Discussion of JSONPath syntax Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2025-03-27, at 16:09, Andrew Newton (andy) wrote: >=20 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/verify_errata_select.php?eid=3D8343 >=20 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/verify_errata_select.php?eid=3D8352 >=20 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/verify_errata_select.php?eid=3D8353 >=20 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/verify_errata_select.php?eid=3D8354 I don=E2=80=99t think we have access to those. > I was asked by the RFC Editor to have these be separate reports, which = I was able to do. I=E2=80=99m wondering about the rationale, because atomizing errata = reports is definitely NOT how these things should be done. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten