Re: Update regarding encoding issues in the media type registration

Followup on this:

It seems that either approach is fine. I am inclined to leave it as
is, and if the media types list finds an issue, they will let us know.

Thanks

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Yakov Shafranovich
<yakov-ietf@shaftek.org> wrote:
> Here is the reply from the IETF folks. Short summary is that the
> language in RFC 6839 should be followed instead of 7159. That means
> the encoding should read as follows:
>
> Encoding considerations:
>
> As per section 3.1 of RFC 6839, when JSON is written in UTF-8,
> encoding is 8-bit; when JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, encoding
> is binary.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
> Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6839 (4367)
> To: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov-ietf@shaftek.org>, Barry Leiba
> <barryleiba@computer.org>
> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
> "tony+sss@maillennium.att.com" <tony+sss@maillennium.att.com>,
> "Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com" <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>,
> "superuser@gmail.com" <superuser@gmail.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org"
> <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>
>
> On 5/15/15 9:31 AM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>> [For context, this is originating from the work at the W3C regarding CSV files]
>>
>> There appears to be an issue about how to specify encoding
>> considerations for media types that can be encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16
>> and UTF-32. For media types, the valid choices are 7-bit, 8-bit and
>> binary, which would mean that UTF-16 and UTF-32 are binary. For JSON
>> specifically, since both RFCs define JSON, there is a conflict.
>>
>> There are two ways to write this then:
>>
>> 1. As in RFC 6839:
>>
>> "When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible ([RFC2045]).
>> When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, JSON is binary ([RFC2045])."
>>
>> 2. As per RFC 7159:
>>
>> "binary"
>>
>> What I am arguing is that the second approach would make more sense.
>> Just like RFC 7159 choose to use "binary" in case of multiple UTF
>> encodings, we should follow the same approach in RFC 6839. If not,
>> then RFC 7159 should have errata pointing back to RFC 6839.
>
> Hmmm, it's too bad we didn't catch this before 7159 was published. 7159
> is wrong, or at least incomplete.
>
> When JSON is written in UTF-8, you MAY use an encoding of 8-bit, or you
> MAY use an encoding of binary. When JSON is written in UTF-16 or -32,
> you MUST use an encoding of binary.
>
> This is because of the definition of the encoding system definitions of
> 7-bit, 8-bit and binary, which is totally orthogonal to ANY media type.
> The definition of UTF-8 is, in and of itself, compatible with the
> definition of 8-bit encoding.
>
>     Tony
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yakov
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>>> And yet this RFC predates 7159, so how can 7159 be taken to support errata
>>> for this RFC?
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 15, 2015, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6839,
>>>> "Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes".
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6839&eid=4367
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Type: Technical
>>>> Reported by: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov-ietf@shaftek.org>
>>>>
>>>> Section: 3.1
>>>>
>>>> Original Text
>>>> -------------
>>>> Encoding considerations:
>>>>
>>>>       Per [RFC4627], JSON is allowed to be represented using UTF-8,
>>>>       UTF-16, or UTF-32.  When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit
>>>>       compatible ([RFC2045]).  When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32,
>>>>       JSON is binary ([RFC2045]).
>>>>
>>>> Corrected Text
>>>> --------------
>>>> Encoding considerations:  binary as per section 11 of RFC 7159
>>>>
>>>> Notes
>>>> -----
>>>> RFC 7159, section 11 specifies that encoding for JSON is binary.
>>>>
>>>> Instructions:
>>>> -------------
>>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>>>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>>>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>>>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC6839 (draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-08)
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Title               : Additional Media Type Structured Syntax Suffixes
>>>> Publication Date    : January 2013
>>>> Author(s)           : T. Hansen, A. Melnikov
>>>> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>>>> Source              : Applications Area Working Group
>>>> Area                : Applications
>>>> Stream              : IETF
>>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>>>

Received on Sunday, 17 May 2015 04:15:28 UTC