Skip to main content

The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format
RFC 7158

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
10 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data.

This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.')
2015-10-14
10 (System) Notify list changed from json-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis@ietf.org to (None)
2014-08-27
10 Pete Resnick This document has been replaced by RFC 7159 due to a publication error in RFC 7158.
2014-03-02
10 (System) RFC published
2014-02-27
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-02-24
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-02-21
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-01-30
10 Elwyn Davies Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies.
2014-01-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2014-01-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2014-01-16
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-01-15
10 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-01-14
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-01-14
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-01-14
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-01-13
10 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-01-13
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-01-13
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-01-13
10 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2014-01-12
10 Pete Resnick State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2013-12-30
10 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2013-12-19
10 Tim Bray IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2013-12-19
10 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10.txt
2013-12-19
09 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2013-12-19
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom.
2013-12-19
09 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
The discussion of the topic of whether ordering is specified in Section 4 seems to be converging. I expect the right thing to …
[Ballot comment]
The discussion of the topic of whether ordering is specified in Section 4 seems to be converging. I expect the right thing to happen with the help of chairs and authors.
2013-12-19
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2013-12-19
09 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this. I would like to briefly discuss the topic of whether ordering is specified in Section 4 and WG's history …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this. I would like to briefly discuss the topic of whether ordering is specified in Section 4 and WG's history on that topic before recommending the approval of the document.
2013-12-19
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Discuss from No Record
2013-12-19
09 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for writing this. I would like to briefly discuss the topic of whether ordering is specified in Section 4 and WG's history …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for writing this. I would like to briefly discuss the topic of whether ordering is specified in Section 4 and WG's history on that topic before recommending the approval of the document.
2013-12-19
09 Jari Arkko Ballot comment text updated for Jari Arkko
2013-12-19
09 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
To the document shepherd: thanks for a good and useful shepherd writeup.

In addition to text asking IANA to change the reference document …
[Ballot comment]
To the document shepherd: thanks for a good and useful shepherd writeup.

In addition to text asking IANA to change the reference document in the registration (which has been worked out with IANA), I'd have liked to have seen us take this opportunity to update the registration template to conform to RFC 6838 (with addition of "Security considerations" and "Fragment identifier considerations" sections).  That could be done with an RFC Editor note such as this:

  In Section 11:

  Insert before "Interoperability considerations:"...
  NEW
  Security Considerations: See [this RFC], section 12.
  END
 
  Insert before "Additional information:"...
  NEW
  Fragment identifier considerations: Fragments are not used and are
      not appropriate for this media type.
  END

I'll also note that an issue has been raised that I'm not sure has been adequately answered yet, as to the wisdom of our taking change control for this media type.
2013-12-19
09 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2013-12-19
09 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
In addition to text asking IANA to change the reference document in the registration (which has been worked out with IANA), I'd have …
[Ballot comment]
In addition to text asking IANA to change the reference document in the registration (which has been worked out with IANA), I'd have liked to have seen us take this opportunity to update the registration template to conform to RFC 6838 (with addition of "Security considerations" and "Fragment identifier considerations" sections).  That could be done with an RFC Editor note such as this:

  In Section 11:

  Insert before "Interoperability considerations:"...
  NEW
  Security Considerations: See [this RFC], section 12.
  END
 
  Insert before "Additional information:"...
  NEW
  Fragment identifier considerations: Fragments are not used and are not
      appropriate for this media type.
  END

I'll also note that an issue has been raised that I'm not sure has been adequately answered yet, as to the wisdom of our taking change control for this media type.
2013-12-19
09 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-12-19
09 Benoît Claise [Ballot comment]
Thanks for the precise and complete "Appendix A. Changes from RFC 4627" section. Pretty handy for the review.
2013-12-19
09 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-12-18
09 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2013-12-18
09 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
As the guy who kind of put a bug in somebody's ear to elevate this from Informational to Standard track - I thank …
[Ballot comment]
As the guy who kind of put a bug in somebody's ear to elevate this from Informational to Standard track - I thank all those involved.
2013-12-18
09 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-12-18
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot comment]
I had the same understanding as Richard, but whatever you work out with Richard will be fine with me.
2013-12-18
09 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-12-18
09 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-12-18
09 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-12-18
09 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- ECMA-404 looks weird;-)

- Please see the suggestions in the secdir review [1]
which may or may not have gotten to you …
[Ballot comment]

- ECMA-404 looks weird;-)

- Please see the suggestions in the secdir review [1]
which may or may not have gotten to you in mail
already.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04485.html
2013-12-18
09 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-12-17
09 Richard Barnes
[Ballot comment]
The following comment seems inaccurate: "This revision does not change any of the rules of the specification" et seq.  The changes made after …
[Ballot comment]
The following comment seems inaccurate: "This revision does not change any of the rules of the specification" et seq.  The changes made after LC for ECMA alignment have indeed caused texts that were not JSON (per 4627) to become JSON.  For example, the string "  { \"a\": 1 }  " would be illegal according to RFC 4627, but is legal according to this document.
2013-12-17
09 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-12-17
09 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-12-16
09 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-12-12
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2013-12-12
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2013-12-12
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2013-12-12
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2013-12-11
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2013-12-11
09 Pete Resnick State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2013-12-11
09 Pete Resnick Ballot has been issued
2013-12-11
09 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-12-11
09 Pete Resnick Created "Approve" ballot
2013-12-11
09 Pete Resnick Ballot writeup was changed
2013-12-11
09 Paul Hoffman
Shepherd writesup for draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis

1. Summary

Paul Hoffman (one of the WG co-chairs) is the document shepherd. Pete Resnick is the responsible AD.

This document …
Shepherd writesup for draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis

1. Summary

Paul Hoffman (one of the WG co-chairs) is the document shepherd. Pete Resnick is the responsible AD.

This document is an update to RFC 4627, the RFC that describes the JSON format. (Note that there two
other independent definitions of JSON: json.org, and ECMA-262 (Edition 5.1, June 2011). This
document is a minimal update to RFC 4627 that corrects some errors, adds a bit of clarification, and
points out topics where there have been interoperability issues since RFC 4627 was published. As
stated in the charter, this document is meant to be a Proposed Standard.

2. Review and Consensus

This document had a wonderfully wide and deep review. The WG had a high number of IETF regulars and
newcomers. Although we had little input from the members of TC39 in Ecma, we had lots of input from
the larger JSON-using community, including many active developers of JSON libraries.

The WG went through a couple of phases during the review, with some folks wanting to fix a lot of things,
some wanting to basicly push it out untouched, and still others wanting a light touch with useful notes.
In then end, there was rough group consensus for the latter.

Near the end of the review cycle, Ecma issued a new document that defined (mostly) just the syntax
for JSON, Standard ECMA-404. The syntaxes in this document and ECMA-404 appear identical. It
is worthwhile noting that the syntaxes are described in different languages (this document uses
ABNF, the Ecma document uses racetrack-style pictures).

3. Intellectual Property

There was no WG discussion of IPR given that this is an update to a format document for which there
was no IPR statements in the first place.

4. Other Points

The WG charter says:
  The resulting document will be jointly published as an RFC and by ECMA.
  ECMA participants will be participating in the working group editing
  through the normal process of working group participation. The
  responsible AD will coordinate the approval process with ECMA so that
  the versions of the document that are approved by each body are the
  same.
None of that happened. This document stands on its own, as does ECMA-404 and upcoming revision to
the ECMAScript standard.
2013-12-10
09 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-09.txt
2013-12-09
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom.
2013-12-05
08 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2013-12-04
08 Tim Bray IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2013-12-04
08 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-08.txt
2013-12-02
07 Tina Tsou Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2013-12-02
07 Tina Tsou Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2013-11-29
07 Pete Resnick Removed telechat returning item indication
2013-11-29
07 Pete Resnick Telechat date has been changed to 2013-12-19 from 2013-12-05
2013-11-25
07 (System) State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-11-25)
2013-11-20
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahalingam Mani
2013-11-20
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahalingam Mani
2013-11-14
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2013-11-14
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2013-11-14
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2013-11-14
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2013-11-14
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2013-11-14
07 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has a question about the IANA actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA Question --> Is the only action being requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document - an update to the reference
for the application/json Media Type that is currently registered in:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application

?

If so, IANA understands that this is the only action being requested
upon approval of the document.  The author should update the text
in the next version to indicate that this document updates
that reference for clarity purposes.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.
This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2013-11-11
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-11-11
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The JSON Data Interchange Format) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The JSON Data Interchange Format) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the JavaScript Object Notation WG
(json) to consider the following document:
- 'The JSON Data Interchange Format'
  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 2013-11-25. 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


  JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based,
  language-independent data interchange format.  It was derived from
  the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard.  JSON defines a small
  set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured
  data.

  This document makes no changes to the definition of JSON; it repairs
  specification errors and offers experience-based interoperability
  guidance.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2013-11-11
07 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-11-09
07 Pete Resnick Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-12-05
2013-11-09
07 Pete Resnick Last call was requested
2013-11-09
07 Pete Resnick Ballot approval text was generated
2013-11-09
07 Pete Resnick Ballot writeup was generated
2013-11-09
07 Pete Resnick State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2013-11-09
07 Pete Resnick Last call announcement was changed
2013-11-09
07 Pete Resnick Last call announcement was generated
2013-11-06
07 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-07.txt
2013-10-31
06 Pete Resnick Evaluation done. Waiting for chairs to give me the go-ahead for LC.
2013-10-31
06 Pete Resnick State changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation
2013-10-29
06 Pete Resnick State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-10-16
06 Pete Resnick Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard
2013-10-16
06 Pete Resnick IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-10-16
06 Pete Resnick Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-10-16
06 Paul Hoffman Changed document writeup
2013-10-13
06 Paul Hoffman Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2013-10-13
06 Paul Hoffman IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2013-10-12
06 Paul Hoffman Changed document writeup
2013-10-12
06 Paul Hoffman Document shepherd changed to Paul Hoffman
2013-10-12
06 Paul Hoffman Document shepherd changed to (None)
2013-10-12
06 Paul Hoffman Document shepherd changed to (None)
2013-10-11
06 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-06.txt
2013-10-08
05 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-05.txt
2013-09-26
04 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-04.txt
2013-09-19
03 Tim Bray New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-03.txt
2013-06-06
02 Douglas Crockford New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-02.txt
2013-06-06
01 Douglas Crockford New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-01.txt
2013-06-05
00 Douglas Crockford New version available: draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-00.txt