Subject: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-03

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:08:51 +0200

Hi.

first of all: thanks Mark for taking over.

Below are a few comments...:

>    This specification expresses normative syntax rules using Augmented
>    Backus-Naur Form [RFC5234] (ABNF) notation.

s/[RFC5234] (ABNF)/(ABNF) [RFC5234]/

>    If a reference token contains '~' (%x7E) or '/' (%x2F) characters,
>    they MUST be encoded as '~0' and '~1' respectively.

I'd prefer this to be a statement of fact, not a requirement. Such as:

"As the characters '~' (%x7E) and '/' (%x2F) characters have a special 
meaning in JSON pointer and thus need to be encoded as'~0' and '~1' 
respectively."

>       If the currently referenced value is a JSON object, the new
>       referenced value is the object member with the name (after
>       unescaping any backslash escape sequences that can occur in a JSON
>       string) identified by the reference token.  The member name is

What unescaping does this refer to? Is this about JSON Pointers 
transported inside JSON string values? In that case I think this should 
be dropped; it's not relevant here. (JSON Pointer in JSON strings is 
first mentioned in the following section).

>    A JSON Pointer can be represented in a JSON string value.  Per
>    [RFC4627], section 2.5, all instances of quotation mark '"' (%x22),

s/section/Section/

>    A JSON Pointer can be represented in a URI fragment identifier. by
>    encoding it into octets, using UTF-8 [RFC3629], percent-encoding
>    those characters not allowed by the fragment rule in [RFC3986].

s/identifier. by/identifier by/

>    Note that a given media type needs to nominate JSON Pointer as its
>    fragment identifier syntax explicitly (usually, in its registration
>    [RFC4288]); i.e., just because a document is JSON does not imply that
>    JSON Pointer can be used as its fragment identifier syntax.

I think it would be good to make it very clear that the current 
definition of JSON does NOT define a fragment identifier syntax.

>    [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
>               Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.

This should reference draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-14 which is 
already in the RFC publication queue.

Best regards, Julian