ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08

2012-12-17 18:11:05
Ah, thanks for the context; will change it back.


On 18/12/2012, at 4:17 AM, Paul C. Bryan <pbryan(_at_)anode(_dot_)ca> wrote:

Incidentally, early (draft-pbryan-json-patch-*) drafts were aligned with 
JSON; later feedback when adopted by the IETF APPSAWG changed it to binary 
(starting in draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-00). The grounds for this was a 
consensus that the JSON draft was wrong to have made it 8bit for UTF-8.

Paul

On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 14:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
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/







--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>