Subject: [Json] I-JSON Outstanding AD Issues: Software Behavior

From: ⌘ Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:00:17 -0700

Hello all,

In evaluating draft-ietf-json-i-json-03, our AD raised a number of
concerns.  While most have been addressed in -04, some of the issues
regarding numbers where left unclear.  One issue is the phrase "MUST
NOT trust nor act on" in section 3. Software Behavior; our AD believes
placing this constraint onto consumers is too onerous.

The text in question is:

   When software reads data which it expects to be an I-JSON message,
   but the data violates one of the MUST constraints in the previous
   section (for example, contains an object with a duplicate key, or a
   UTF-8 encoding error), that software MUST NOT trust nor act on the
   content of the message.

The suggested change is:

   A major advantage of using I-JSON is that receivers can avoid
   ambiguous semantics in the JSON messages it receives. This allows
   receivers to reject or otherwise disregard messages which do not
   conform to the requirements in this document for I-JSON messages.
   Protocols that use I-JSON message can be written so that receiving
   implementation are required to reject (or, as in the case of security
   protocols, not trust) messages that do not satisfy the constraints of
   I-JSON.

This concern (and its suggested change) garnered no discussion whatsoever.

The questions to the Working Group is:

1) Is this suggested change acceptable, and the current text *NOT*
acceptable?

2) Is the current text acceptable, and the suggested change *NOT*
acceptable?

3) Is either text equally acceptable?

4) If neither sets of text are acceptable, what specific text would be?

Thank you,

- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 22:22:31 -0800

I don’t know how this slipped through the cracks.  I can live with either
but I think the proposed change is a substantial improvement and we should
adopt it.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:00 AM, ⌘ Matt Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hello all,
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUff4wAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO18ToIAK8p5yOhp/3DvwP3zCli6LqG
> 5x4YCxyUMxg0xsfdEt8mk3WGST6gXgVivPlFO/bqjoKJtyMcBz0OcaM/n5JBB0lx
> OMF+x/OSmxt1kv0q5tsBca3pAZuNvJ+BIDJ/ezqKxlJyLoxIq/6aeolaAOqCGjbK
> d2Vgi9q3aSNbZrMdgvJ6OKJHs3cl5wQ6KN5z8gOHG+bPvuxGzTpkIAZa2VX1jtKw
> RHyH8FKnnaumU49pIUbiIY0e8+MwIt+23HBV6mtEHZ1AvmZPt30Zay0fJeOsHUfA
> 41wxrtwm8eiseQmbHHnOsEeOOFQSNdNGjeIZnZDYk0nCiEnkf9kbGRdvSrSy7QI=
> =/DcS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:59:28 +0900

I agree with Tim: Go with the new text.   Regards,   Martin.

---

From: ⌘ Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:20:19 -0700

Hello all,

A couple of weeks have passed since the question on Software Behavior
was posed.  So far, all of the responses (of which there are two)
appear to be in favor of Pete's proposed changes.

Unless anyone has strong objections, the editor should submit a
revised I-D with the new text.

Thanks,

- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [email-masked] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.