Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Pete Resnick) Yes
Comment (2013-01-02 for -07)
- Probably worth noting in section 3 that the syntax is in terms of characters (as described in 5234) and in particular not in terms of coded characters (e.g., UTF-8 or any other encoding of a document containing these things is independent of this syntax). The document is exactly correct as-is, but sometimes people confuse characters and bytes. - I would note in section 4 the obvious with regard to arrays: If the reference token following an array is neither a string of "0".."9" nor a "-", then the member that is referenced is undefined, and evaluation fails. - In the example in section 5, I think referring to an object within the object would be helpful.
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
Benoit Claise No Objection
Comment (2013-01-10 for -08)
- 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.
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2013-01-09 for -08)
I'm clearing my Discuss after exchanges with the document shepherd and responsible AD that indicate that, in their opinion, consensus has been reached on the IETF last call issues and that the on-going thread represents only a tail-end to that dicussion with the potential to spin up a new I-D, but will not impact this particular document.
Stephen Farrell No Objection
Comment (2013-01-07 for -08)
- Intro: Does this identify a "value" within a JSON document or a "place where a value should be found" within a JSON document? Seems more like the latter to me. - Section 3: FWIW, Pete's comment about i18n has me confused. But so does "is a Unicode string" here. I guess i18n just has me confused generally, but that's common;-) The last sentence of section 3 however does seem clear to me, as is section 4 so I think leaving this as-is is better than changing it. - Section 3: You say that "~" is special before you say why its special, might be clearer if you said that in text before the ABNF, e.g. adding '"~" is only special because it allows you to escape "/"' and that you chose "~" because its not otherwise used to escape JSON things (which I guess is why you picked it). - 4: is there no MAX value for array indices? Is there any chance that "/foo/12345667890002122312312" might be a DoS vector if it caused some memory allocation to go wonky? If so, it might be good to note that in the security considerations and say that e.g. implemtations MAY have a MAX value they allow for array indices and also give a number that they all MUST support or something. (Yes, I know that'd be a naive way to allocate memory, but I still wanna ask:-) I guess such a warning could go here or in specs that use this, I'm not sure which'd be better. - Section 6: Is "#/i%5Cj" really the same as "/i\\j" ? If it is (which I can believe) then maybe good to call that out as I can imagine folks getting it wrong and using "#/i%5C%5Cj" instead. - section 7: This says specs using this SHOULD do something for "each type of error" but you don't give a specific list of the types of error (you say "is not limited to"). That seems to be a conflict and might be a source of problems if different consumers of this do different things. Given that json-patch does need to know which error has happened sometimes, I think it'd be better if you defined specific named (or numbered, whatever) errors here that could be referenced in other specs using this. - Section 9: Would it be worth saying that pointers in fragments might expose sensitive information? E.g. a fragment like "/user109/hivtest/followupneeded" could be sensitive and we generally prefer to not have sensitive information in URLs as it might be logged.