Both fixed in SVN; thanks for the review.
On 16/12/2012, at 6:32 PM, Roni Even
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012–12–16
IETF LC End Date: 2012–12–25
IESG Telechat date: 2013-1-10
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. The document has as the intended status “Informational” while the
last call says that the intended status is proposed standard?
Nits/editorial comments:
• In the IANA section the “Encoding considerations: binary”. I noticed
that RFC 4627 has a broader description:
“Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32
JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is written
in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible. When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32,
the binary content-transfer-encoding must be used.”
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/