Re: [secdir] [Json] secdir review of draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2017-03-16 11:28, Peter Cordell wrote:
> On 14/03/2017 13:58, John Cowan wrote:
>> In my opinion, we should either take all references to UTF-16 or UTF-32
>> out, or add back a correct detection algorithm. UTF-8 is what is
>> actually interoperable, and interoperability is what RFCs are supposed
>> to be all about.
>
> Combining the original (Tim's) & Martin's proposal with my tweak, plus
> John & Carsten's direction, how about:
>
>
> 8.1.  Character Encoding
>
>    JSON text SHOULD be encoded in UTF-8 [UNICODE] (Section 3).  JSON
>    texts that are encoded in UTF-8 are interoperable in the sense that
>    they will be read successfully by the maximum number of
>    implementations.
>
>    There are many implementations that cannot successfully read texts
>    in other encodings.  JSON text MAY be encoded in other encodings if
>    the generator is sure that the intended parsers can read them.
>
>    Implementations MUST NOT add a byte order mark to the beginning of a
>    JSON 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.
>
> Are "generator" and "parser" the correct terms to use in this instance,
> or does that functionality sit above the character encoding layer?
> ...

Not convinced.

a) It's not constrained to UTF-8/16/32, so people might decide to 
support ISO-8859-1, or UTF-7-

b) It doesn't state that the only way to support encodings other than 
UTF-8 is to inspect the leading octets for zeros (or their lack of).

Best regards, Julian