IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jsonpath] May interim meeting minutes

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 12 June 2021 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731D23A1676 for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 08:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_FAIL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 kxc3OOD0ka_X for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2083A1674 for <jsonpath@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G2LkZ3Y1Hz2xH5; Sat, 12 Jun 2021 17:10:46 +0200 (CEST)
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 <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <0AD6C60E-2580-4C29-9FF7-F83491A35AA6@tzi.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 17:10:46 +0200
Cc: "jsonpath@ietf.org" <jsonpath@ietf.org>, James <james.ietf@gmail.com>, Greg Dennis <gregsdennis@yahoo.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 645203446.087082-885f1493c69cc405e3cb07e883ca94ac
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5BE02E9C-C323-4084-9BFD-F2F131E63FE6@tzi.org>
References: <4b6c9647-ceb5-813b-dd76-0a0457e0c11d@gmail.com> <CAHBU6isus5iMJnJ1LA7j3AbcfRpCT4yo53GH5JewpndJ2GMv5A@mail.gmail.com> <1146398455.3334860.1623382637759@mail.yahoo.com> <C99BFD5B-F9F7-4CA6-B568-1980857834D8@tzi.org> <1245596845.3337542.1623400209305@mail.yahoo.com> <CAHBU6ivTgMxuaXHhoBNRx9-AiNdU5o__TXC92H5fSd-txBVQ0g@mail.gmail.com> <0AD6C60E-2580-4C29-9FF7-F83491A35AA6@tzi.org>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jsonpath/lfEPKW9-IDVQJVNQkI85hHfxRV0>
Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] May interim meeting minutes
X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page <jsonpath.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jsonpath/>
List-Post: <mailto:jsonpath@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 15:10:55 -0000

On 2021-06-11, at 22:49, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
>> Since that PR has a bunch of changes, it may be helpful to pull out a few for independent discussion/decision?
> 
> Yes, please.
> There is lots of good stuff in there, but as a package it is inedible.

Well, I ate that sandwich now.

Given that some of us seem to like #97, I have picked (and slightly fixed up) most of #97 into #101.

I would propose that we merge that quickly and get on to the problematic aspect of #97:
While the terms "object", "array", "number" are used in RFC 8259, it is never clear whether they refer to the concept or its representation in a JSON text.  That problem is irrelevant in RFC 8259 (which, after all, only defines the JSON text), but not here.
The specimen showing this best is a new definition of "String" in #97, which is neither defining the JSON strings JSONPath operates on nor does it make clear that JSONPath has redefined string literals with respect to RFC 8259.
➔ We’ll need to decide whether there also is a different data model for strings in JSONPath or JSONPath just has a different notation.

I would expect that we'll go in and fix the other gaps opened by this PR later; right now I'd rather focus on technical work.

(Oh, and why are we stuck with #94?
Three approvals.)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email