Subject: [Json] Fwd: Re: Extra Review of rfc7159bis?

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:52:25 -0600

Here is an additional review of rfc7159bis that was received off-list
from Martin Thomson.

-----BEGIN REVIEW-----

Firstly, why is this written as though it were an update on 4627?
Does 7159 not exist?

Section 6.  Should this say that the exponent is a base-10 exponent.
It's sort of implied, I guess.

Is there any issue with leading zeros on the exponent, 1e00000 is
valid apparently.

Section 8.1.  The MUST-strength stipulation that this be UTF-8, -16,
or -32 is not strictly consistent with -404.  That document only
requires that the text be Unicode codepoints.  That goal can be
achieved with ASCII encoding.  To that end, it would be reasonable to
exclude -32 from this, or even add -7.  Did the working group discuss
this point?

Section 8.2.  Paving the way to DoS attacks here, aren't you?

Editorial: Hiding the examples at the bottom isn't cool.

-----END REVIEW-----