JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer
draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-04-02
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-03-26
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2013-03-25
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-03-20
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-01-23
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-01-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2013-01-22
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-01-22
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-01-22
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-01-22
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-01-21
|
09 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-01-21
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2013-01-21
|
09 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-09.txt |
2013-01-10
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2013-01-10
|
08 | 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 … [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
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2013-01-10
|
08 | Benoît 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 … [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
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-01-10
|
08 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-01-09
|
08 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2013-01-09
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2013-01-09
|
08 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2013-01-09
|
08 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-01-09
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I'm clearing my Discuss after exchanges with the document shepherd and responsible AD that indicate that, in their opinion, consensus has been reached … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2013-01-09
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-01-08
|
08 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2013-01-08
|
08 | Suresh Krishnan | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan. |
2013-01-08
|
08 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-01-07
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - Intro: Does this identify a "value" within a JSON document or a "place where a value should be found" within a JSON … [Ballot comment] - 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. |
2013-01-07
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-01-06
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] This Discuss position is just to close a topic with the responsible AD. No action is required or requested from the document authors. … [Ballot discuss] This Discuss position is just to close a topic with the responsible AD. No action is required or requested from the document authors. There seems to have been something of an avalanche of email on this I-D continuing long after IETF last call completed. Some of the email has been on the IETF list and some restricted to the appsawg list. Could the responsible AD confirm that the topics, as they impinge on this document, have been addressed to completion and with consensus of the WG? (The recent date on the current version suggests that updates have been made, but also that the new version hasn't had a chance to be widely read.) |
2013-01-06
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-01-05
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-01-03
|
08 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-08.txt |
2013-01-03
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2013-01-03
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2013-01-02
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-01-02
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] - Probably worth noting in section 3 that the syntax is in terms of characters (as described in 5234) and in particular not … [Ballot comment] - 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. |
2013-01-02
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-12-25
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2012-12-25
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-12-25
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-12-25
|
07 | Barry Leiba | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-12-25
|
07 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-12-20
|
07 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. |
2012-12-13
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2012-12-13
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2012-12-13
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2012-12-13
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2012-12-11
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard The … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: - 'JSON Pointer' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-12-25. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract JSON Pointer defines a string syntax for identifying a specific value within a JSON document. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-12-11
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-12-11
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-01-10 |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Document shepherd writeup can be viewed here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/management/shepherds/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/writeup/ |
2012-12-10
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt |
2012-12-10
|
06 | Barry Leiba | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-12-10
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-12-10
|
06 | Barry Leiba | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation |
2012-12-10
|
06 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-12-10
|
06 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-12-10
|
06 | Barry Leiba | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-12-10
|
06 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2012-12-09
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2012-12-06
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2012-12-06
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-12-04
|
06 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-06.txt |
2012-12-01
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2012-12-01
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2012-12-01
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-11-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2012-11-05
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tags Author or Editor Needed, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2012-10-21
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Initiating Working Group Last Call, ending November 23. |
2012-10-21
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | Clearing old tags. |
2012-10-21
|
05 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-05.txt |
2012-09-05
|
04 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-04.txt |
2012-08-11
|
03 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-03.txt |
2012-07-03
|
02 | Mark Nottingham | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-02.txt |
2012-06-10
|
01 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Author or Editor Needed set. |
2012-05-18
|
01 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2012-03-30
|
01 | Murray Kucherawy | Mark Nottingham to assume editor role. |
2012-03-30
|
01 | Murray Kucherawy | Awaiting revision based on WG discussion |
2012-03-30
|
01 | Barry Leiba | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba from Pete Resnick |
2012-03-09
|
01 | Paul Bryan | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-01.txt |
2012-03-05
|
00 | Barry Leiba | Changed shepherd to Murray Kucherawy |
2012-02-19
|
00 | Pete Resnick | Draft added in state AD is watching |
2012-01-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-00.txt |