Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs 3 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
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.
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.
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.
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
- 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
- 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.