• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: appsawg

Current state: Submitted to IESG for Publication

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-04-02 17:37 (System)

RFC published

2013-04-02 07:22 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48

2013-03-26 16:10 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE

2013-03-25 15:28 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48

2013-03-20 14:56 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR

2013-01-23 07:28 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2013-01-22 10:58 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

2013-01-22 07:44 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2013-01-22 07:44 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2013-01-22 07:44 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2013-01-22 07:43 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2013-01-21 14:38 Barry Leiba

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2013-01-21 14:38 Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Yes from Discuss

2013-01-21 14:24 Mark Nottingham

New revision available

2013-01-10 10:25 Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation

2013-01-10 06:13 Barry Leiba

[Ballot discuss]
I'm putting a DISCUSS on to hold this for now while I have a bit of discussion with the authors about the arrays vs objects issue.

2013-01-10 06:13 Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Discuss from Yes

2013-01-10 05:41 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
- I consider this draft as poor in explaining the use cases and example for the JSON pointer.
In comparison, draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch did a much better job.
The interaction, if any, with the JSON patch should be explained. It nothing else as a potential use case/example.
JSON-PATCH mentions:

Additionally, operation objects MUST have exactly one "path" member,
whose value MUST be a string containing a [JSON-Pointer] value that
references a location within the target document to perform the
operation (the "target location").

But JSON-POINTER doesn't even mention JSON-PATCH
So bad luck is someone starts by reading JSON-POINTER...

- For the record, I insert Dan Romascanu's OPS DIR review, stressing the need to reclassify RFC 4627 sooner than latter:

By now, if somebody makes a snapshot after these documents will be approved a rather odd situation shows up. Two (maybe more documents) which are standards track extend a base document which is Informational. Standards that extend non-standards. If 4627 was Standards Track we would have used 'Updates RFC 4627' in the meta-data, but of course we cannot do it now.

Nothing critical happens (I think) as long as things work OK - but probably the sooner reclassifying 4627 happens the better.

2013-01-10 05:41 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise

2013-01-10 03:52 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.