[Jsonpath] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9535 (8343)

[Glyn Normington <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vladimir

Thanks for taking the time to raise your erratum. And thanks to Carsten for
handling/generalising it.

This was the first erratum I've been involved in as a RFC author. The
process was "interesting". 😉

Glyn

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025, 07:53 Vladimir Gorej, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> Thank you again for pushing this forward.
> Just to set the record straight, the fix for `comparable` production rule
> was
> discovered by Carsten Bormann, I actually missed it when reporting the
> original errata.
>
> Have a great weekend!
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:16 PM Jean Mahoney <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Carsten,
>>
>> On 3/27/25 12:03 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> > Hi Jean,
>> >
>> >> On 3/27/25 11:20 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [JM] I suggested splitting them up so that the reports would display
>> better inline.
>> >
>> > Thank you for the explanation.
>> >
>> > So this is essentially a limitation of the inline-errata mechanism that
>> is now shaping the way we record errata?
>> > The inline-errata mechanism is certainly very useful, and I already
>> suspected that limitations of that mechanism might be the reason.
>> >
>> > The flip side is that a lot of redundancy is entering the errata
>> reporting database in such a case, which will make the life harder for
>> those who don’t happen to approach the document from the inline-errata
>> mechanism.
>>
>> [JM] This can be a judgment call. "GLOBAL" should be used for small,
>> noisy updates (e.g., "foobar" should be "fooBar" throughout the
>> document). For a small GLOBAL update, the inline note will be placed at
>> the first instance even if there are several [1]. For multi-line GLOBAL
>> updates, the inline note will be printed at the end [2].
>>
>> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc8971.html#btn_6427
>> [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc8520.html#eid5664
>>
>> >
>> > I notice that I don’t need to go through the links Andy provided: I can
>> get at the current state via https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9535.
>> [JM] Links that contain verify_errata_select.php?eid=nnnn are only
>> accessible to verifiers. A report's accessible link has the following
>> format:  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eidNNNN
>> Or it can be accessed through the RFC's errata page.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jean
>>
>>
>> > Maybe the redundancy could be reduced by making 8352, and certainly
>> 8353/4, refer to 8343 (preferably removing the duplicated text by the
>> pointer, or possible duplicating it but saying that the notes of 8352/3/4
>> are just a restatement of the notes for 8343).
>> >
>> > Obviously, it is important to handle the errata report in a timely
>> manner, and splitting it up into four may be an expedient way to do this
>> now.  But I would be unhappy if this atomization remained our SoP for
>> handling errata report that lead to text changes in more than one place.
>> >
>> > Grüße, Carsten
>> >
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Vladimír Gorej
> email: v <[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> tel: [phone]
> web: https://vladimirgorej.com
>
>