JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Text Sequences
draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-13
Yes
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -11)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-17 for -11)
Unknown
I see others have noticed the glaring typo (0x1E for LF) in the abstract...
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-18 for -11)
Unknown
I've asked that the media type registration request be posted to the media-types@iana.org list for comment. That's been done, and there's been a little discussion that's resulted in some suggestions for a couple of minor changes, but nothing major. I consider this point cleared, knowing that the minor changes are coming.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-15 for -11)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing the OPS-DIR review in a timely manner.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-17)
Unknown
Section 2.2.: "textm"
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -11)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-15 for -11)
Unknown
- abstract: 2nd 0x1E should be 0x0A I guess. That really needs fixing so could well be a DISCUSS but is probably so obvious it'll happen without that:-) But let me know if you prefer this be a DISCUSS for tracking purposes. - 2.1 doesn't say anything about 0x00 which often creates security issues. Worth a note? Not sure myself. - 2.2: thanks for the ctrl-^ info - that's good. Would it be worth adding that in e.g. vim/vi you should precede that ctrl-^ with ctrl-v so as to get the right value into your file? - 2.3: I think SHOULD NOT abort is too strong - did the wg consider saying they SHOULD or MAY abort and giving the log example as a counter example? It just seems safer to me if the default behaviour is to abort. However, I'm not that certain of this point, so this isn't a discuss. - section 3: 2nd sentence, I think what you really should be saying is that parsing one of these does not necessarily give you a good input to a MAC or signature verification process as you might or might not still have canonicalisation issues. - section 3: I think you ought mention the potential here for careless code to be vulnerable to buffer overruns. We've seen that too often to ignore it I'd argue. - Most of the above plus a few others are also noted in the secdir review [1]. I'm sure the author/shepherd/AD will engage with the reviewer there too. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05300.html
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-16 for -11)
Unknown
I'm not going to raise this as a DISCUSS because I'm on vacation and can't respond, but I am a bit concerned by the following text in the document: Multiple consecutive RS octets do not denote empty sequence elements between them, and can be ignored. The concern I have is that this document appears to suggest that a large dataset can be transferred as a series of json text sequences. But nowhere in the document (that I noticed) is it explained how each chunk of text is identified. It could be that they do not need to be identified: that each chunk stands alone. But suppose you are transferring array elements, rather than database tuples. In order to avoid a mis-count, it would have to be the case that each tuple contains the index of the array element that it represents. I suspect that the intention is actually that these sequences never be used this way, but it would be nice to state that explicitly, e.g. something like this: This document does not define a mechanism for reliably identifying text sequence by position (for example, when sending individual elements of an array as unique text sequences. Each json text sequence should therefore contain sufficient information that it is meaningful regardless of the order in which it appears in a stream of text sequences.