# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-jsonpath-base
## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
As broad agreement as possible. The JSONPath working group list and meetings
hold very small attendance, but consensus for the document's adoption and
progress was, as a whole, consistent.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
It has been pointed out that there are JSONPath expressions which will work well
in popular implementations that are not blessed by this draft. However, we feel
that the WG charter has been met: To specify a useful subset of JSONPath
expression syntax such that any conforming expression should have a high
probability of correct interoperation (i.e. producing the same effect) in a wide
variety of implementations.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942] recommends) or elsewhere
There is a large number of JSONPath implementations, including at least one for
every popular programming language. The goal of this WG was to produce a
specification such that JSONPath expressions conforming to it will have a high
probability of interoperating across a large number of these implementations.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
We understand that draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted has taken a dependency on
this draft, and we have notified that WG of this request for publication.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document does propose creating an IANA registry for JSONPath extension
functions, with care to specifying a process similar to other such
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342]?
This draft contains no YANG modules.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Tooling has been written by the authors and made public along with the document
itself to validate and test the ABNF present in it, which is present in the
document's Github Repository.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
Note that reference  is a broken link. Since this draft specifies an
extremely limited string syntax for a single narrow use case, it seems
unlikely that it would encounter the sort of issues raised in this question.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Proposed Standard. Since it is designed for use by people who write JSONPath
expressions and the software that processes them, this seems like the appropriate
type of publication.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
We have been diligent about Note Well protocol, and the authors have been
reminded to ensure their IPR disclosure obligations are fulfilled where
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes. There are three editors.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The current version of the document has minor nits reported by idnits:
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 12 comments (--).
However these appear to be false positives. I believe those aside, the structure and
sections as described in the Content Guidelines are in check.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References].
We believe the references are in the correct sections.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
All normative references are publicly available documents.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967] and [BCP
97]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry]? If so,
No, there are no downward references. Idnits thinks [Unicode] is one but we
assume this can be ignored.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-jsonpath-iregexp-05 whose current
status is IESG Evaluation.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No other document statuses will be impacted.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126]).
The draft registers a new media type, application/jsonpath. It also defines
a registry for JSONPath extension functions. This was one of the most
heavily-discussed parts of the document and I believe it is in a satisfactory
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The draft specifies a new "Function Extensions sub-registry" in a new "JSONPath
Parameters registry", with the policy "expert review", per Section 4.5 of [BCP26].
I believe the instructions are acceptably clear.