Re: [rpat] Author request to use sourcecode with type set to "jsonpath"

Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Fri, 02 February 2024 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jmahoney@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: rpat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rpat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F10CC151538 for <rpat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:43:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6b1c9e7NS2ZO for <rpat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB92C151539 for <rpat@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3828D424CD3F; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-GBJcbThYEC; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [47.186.48.51]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BE84424B426; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <7aa98269-2661-4811-b196-2f6c879cf2db@amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 10:43:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, rpat@rfc-editor.org
References: <23794C60-4D64-49C7-857D-FDBBADBB3ADE@amsl.com> <f83aa09d-fdfb-40d3-96f1-458b399557eb@nostrum.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <f83aa09d-fdfb-40d3-96f1-458b399557eb@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rpat/sOPNAcYEzcWqXr6sVP391r6F_uA>
Subject: Re: [rpat] Author request to use sourcecode with type set to "jsonpath"
X-BeenThere: rpat@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Production Advisory Team - Provides operational advice to the RFC Production Center <rpat.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rpat>, <mailto:rpat-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rpat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rpat@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rpat-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rpat>, <mailto:rpat-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 16:43:33 -0000

Hi Robert,

On 2/2/24 8:41 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> What do we currently do for message/sipfrag? (See rfc34320)

[JM] No v3-era documents mention sipfrag so it hasn't come up.

> 
> This should follow that pattern. (And it argues for using the mime type).

[JM] Would you recommend "application/jsonpath" or just "jsonpath"? The 
list of sourcecode types doesn't include the media type currently.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt

Thanks!
Jean


> 
> RjS
> 
> On 2/1/24 6:45 PM, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>> Greetings RPAT,
>>
>> Please see the request below to add "jsonpath" to the list of 
>> preferred values for
>> sourcecode type 
>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt). The authors
>> would like to use this type in Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 
>> 2.4.6, 2.4.7, and 2.4.8 and
>> Appendix B.1 of RFC-to-be 9535 (draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-21).
>>
>>> 23) <!-- [rfced] We see type="JSONPath" is used for some of the 
>>> sourcecode elements
>>> in this document. This is not included in our current list of preferred
>>> values; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt.
>>> Please review the list and let us know which value to use for "type".
>>> If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to 
>>> suggest
>>> additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave 
>>> the
>>> "type" attribute not set.
>>> —>
>> Carsten (author):
>>> One of us believes the sourcecode-type should be application/jsonpath.
>>> But as long as we don’t use media-type names, we probably should 
>>> shorten this to jsonpath.
>>> (§ 3.1 does not suggest a filename extension, which would be a 
>>> natural candidate. JSONPath is uncharacteristically mixed case, and 
>>> “jsonpath” (lower case) is closest to what has been done to other 
>>> sourcecode-types.)
>> In your opinion, is this an acceptable addition?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>