[Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 02 March 2014 20:34 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7C81A0AB8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:34:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYRhCs_19rcp for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2607:f170:8000:1500::d3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC701A0AAD for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:34:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A7DEB7FC2CB; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:34:13 -0800 (PST)
To: tbray@textuality.com, barryleiba@computer.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, mamille2@cisco.com, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20140302203413.A7DEB7FC2CB@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:34:13 -0800
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/q6Ie_CzVYsvzWKV3fvXpSs7ci_w
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, rfc7158@schmorp.de, json@ietf.org
Subject: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907)
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 20:34:18 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7158, "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7158&eid=3907 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Marc Lehmann <rfc7158@schmorp.de> Section: 1.3, 2.0, 3. Original Text ------------- This document's goal is to apply the errata, remove inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, and highlight practices that can lead to interoperability problems. A JSON value MUST be an object, array, number, or string, or one of the following three literal names: Corrected Text -------------- Notes ----- Since RFC7158 breaks compatibility with the specifications, this should be duly noted. The original specification (both in RFC4627 and on www.json.org, I know of no other JSON "specifications") specify JSON as a self-delimited format, that is, each JSON text can be parsed without extra delimiters or length wrapping, and some network protocols came to rely on this by asking for back-to-back JSON texts. RFC7158 changes this, so protocols that formerly consumed JSON texts without any extra wrapping are no longer compliant to this new specification. These protocols are now in violation of RFC7158, and they can't be fixed in a backwards compatible way. This introduces a big incompatibility between RFC7158 implementations and older ones, and this is not at all reflected in the introduction nor, as far as I could see, anywhere else in the new rfc. Thus it is likely that this is a specification error - the new RFC should either warn that the new RFC is not compatible with the existign specifications, or be fixed to be compatible. I think changing JSON in an incompatible way at this stage would be an extremely bad idea. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC7158 (draft-ietf-json-rfc4627bis-10) -------------------------------------- Title : The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format Publication Date : March 2014 Author(s) : T. Bray, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : JavaScript Object Notation Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3907) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Paul E. Jones
- [Json] On the errata (Was: [Technical Errata Repo… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Json] On the errata (Was: [Technical Errata … Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Tim Bray
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7158 (3… R S