Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-12-25
Requested 2012-12-13
Authors Paul C. Bryan , Kris Zyp , Mark Nottingham
I-D last updated 2012-12-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Suresh Krishnan
State Completed
Review review-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07-genart-lc-krishnan-2012-12-25
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2012-12-25
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see


Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietfdraft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-08.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2013/01/07
IESG Telechat date: 2013/01/10

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard. I do have a minor comment that you may wish to address and a
procedural point for the GEN AD to consider.


* Section 4

The following two pieces of text seem contradictory to me. It is
possible that I am just misunderstanding something. If this is the case,
please let me know.

"If the currently referenced value is a JSON array, the reference token
MUST contain either:
*  exactly the single character "-", making the new referenced     value
the (non-existant) member after the last array element."

Which seems to indicate that the character "-" is valid for use and this
is followed by the following text at the end of the section

"  Note that the use of the "-" character to index an array will always
   result in such an error; applications of JSON Pointer thus need to
   specify how it is to be handled, if it is to be useful."

which seems to indicate that this is an error condition. Can you please


* There is a downref to RFC4627 that has not been called out. I looked
up the shepherd writeup at

and it curiously seems to be incomplete. Has there been an update to the
shepherd writeup since Feb 2012. The last one I know of is at