Skip to main content

The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format
RFC 8259

Yes

(Mirja Kühlewind)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2017-03-14 for -03)
If rfc7159 already Obsoleted rfc4627 and rfc7158, and this document Obsoletes rfc7159, does it need to be marked as Obsoleting rfc4627 and rfc7158 again?  I would think that it doesn't.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes (2017-03-23 for -03)
Alvaro: I think you are correct. I've added an RFC Editor note.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-03-14 for -03)
- section 9: This allows limits for nesting depth, number range and precision, and string length. Can you offer any guidance about what sorts of limits might be reasonable? Or what limits might unreasonably impact interoperability?

- 12, 2nd paragraph: This paragraph sort of buries the lede. I thought it was going to talk about the implications of not being able to parse certain JSON legal characters with eval(), but I understand it really about the risk of arbitrary executable content. I suggest you say that in the first sentence.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-03-15 for -03)
I don't see a response to the first part of the SecDir review on the Security Considerations section.  Given the content of the current security considerations section, I agree with Ben that the additional considerations he mentions should be included.  Can someone respond to Ben please on that part of his review?  Thank you.

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)

                            

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -03)