Subject: [apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6902 (4460)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 06:56:16 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6902,
"JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6902&eid=4460

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Lucas Bickel <[email-masked]>
Date Reported: 2015-08-29
Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG)

Section: 4.1

Original Text
-------------
   However, the object itself or an array containing it does need to
   exist, and it remains an error for that not to be the case.  For
   example, an "add" with a target location of "/a/b" starting with this
   document:

   { "a": { "foo": 1 } }

   is not an error, because "a" exists, and "b" will be added to its
   value.  It is an error in this document:

   { "q": { "bar": 2 } }

   because "a" does not exist.

Corrected Text
--------------
   However, the object itself or an array containing it does need to
   exist, and it remains an error for that not to be the case.  For
   example, an "add" with a target location of "/a/b" starting with this
   document:

   { "a": { "foo": 1 } }

   is not an error, because "a" exists, and "b" will be added to its
   value.  It is an error in this document:

   { "q": { "bar": 2 } }

   because "a" does not exist. Considering a target location of "/a/1"
   it should be not be an error in this document:

    { "a": [ "foo" ] }

    while the same "add" into this document will be an error:

    { "a": [ ] }

    because "/a/0" does not exist.

Notes
-----
Adding to an object has such a nice example that explains the error cases. I think adding to a sequential array should have one as well.

To my understanding this is already pretty clear from RFC6901, I feel it will make the spec easier to implement if we have an example right here.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
Thanks for the comment, Lucas.  This is, though, not a report of an error, so as an errata report it is rejected.  It is a reasonable suggestion that we should consider if a new version of the document is done.  The comment is recorded in the JSON mailing list archive.

--------------------------------------
RFC6902 (draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch
Publication Date    : April 2013
Author(s)           : P. Bryan, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Applications Area Working Group APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG