From nobody Mon Aug 12 16:54:54 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15F6120018 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=segment.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hwgqix5YUPEL for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot1-x32f.google.com (mail-ot1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8C512001B for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id j7so21012413ota.9 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=segment.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=163ShWnLo+ZgVTEoOw7aaFnZ8AGInTeUhbUdC2OUoAQ=; b=U9AG/1yahLaAETS9MVISC0BUzpA2zQoctTClIaAorfsLnhe3FZCFOtvPFHofIhwBVA DqELWvnCOh4u0TtNOjqBUfsbzYcfOxtEUIHpmtYwBVHWkB6dZePokhks0x8utWe35dim 8NYqOeO2TUsSUMLuFBWCtr/OVeRfe+G0mbtzQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=163ShWnLo+ZgVTEoOw7aaFnZ8AGInTeUhbUdC2OUoAQ=; b=gXCCsOyXlzHd1UofOG5Jwk+FJzvufONCZYP/EXcIsgFa7UozX5CGD+i1u9Cmh86boD tPo0AtwsyD5ciJTB2tjMBGn+9qgcBeF4I5D17KXNcnlwPmzmS+mGMRFRnejJECc8z1Jy osfMkwMZXowNozCvXZjGViSUOgUfcUAUWN1LYXkTGxDXokY8yRagecO9Y21xZBYCilTD HJNbjDJLop2Hy+ULe9jTdrVoWW9FhZVG5X7rKB8/h/tWsWqbKDC8Rw+193w8Z5C6S0Ht PTS2YvCqP6CdBLW+M9BlIp4MD7k0CHTRyvKRO56W93CPtD9Tu/9NBBFh4pc7ikVC83T2 CZBg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUsiUrYPPsNv1BPPIMH9qUrr3e4/9UuRe/vgxrTVCqslmqbE2g r2a18R7SOwZ5dNBWYBzNh+5GWh45/UYx7mt/MpGLiNxY6yc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxc//tbyK/EIUvJuSAFDTRygEPBZxx1RKpu3lQ5SQz21i3U/pT03IxU/cm4DxYsdTT8roNbnt3/HwKBsQSOfTM= X-Received: by 2002:a02:c84b:: with SMTP id r11mr5716463jao.3.1565654088773; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ulysse Carion Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:54:38 -0700 Message-ID: To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "integer" in JSON X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:54:52 -0000 Hi all, Section 6.2.1 of RFC 7071 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7071#section-6.2.1) says: > INTEGER: an "integer" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] But JSON does not explicitly define integers. Perhaps the "int" ABNF rule was what was meant? The word "integer" only appears in passing here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627#section-2.4 Thanks, Ulysse From nobody Wed Aug 21 15:08:29 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774341201AA for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deS4X2vIBGWZ for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DD921201E5 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com with SMTP id j25so2469324vsq.12 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:08:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tzji9FCrsv4s0McFFtogevZvEKc4UrXSUWKrYg6XYGI=; b=NGbZ02W3MeR4ZDc6xOi6TV9EmYhw21xep8ht9Nb5zyq17DVJw6t8F+kfrgJ5HrcbGW C+XEL8LVzhQSk26+FhGeopxc1wninRGnHbWxiMqQFLWRnc1pMfshTV6AJB5BWlh8FW1X VXsadhPBFKfEv6UJwIyNJLeRqfjSYrvoYN+U3ofFAQAIUPdnt8UIQJsWXNHaETmXK7rP YEux+1rRYvqbwzXc1FMPo0MqZTh712eAfaviOV8YRdlMbMppQumyHcKUINOqeaZZOLnS TioE8PbrVAZKA2qVIjvkLvt8bdCEOGns9C05qWoZ8resoB7ESwjJ87jD275xoq97j/Ei WiBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Tzji9FCrsv4s0McFFtogevZvEKc4UrXSUWKrYg6XYGI=; b=qPfgzTbc/eoi+Jb3Z8MlhlT+PdkgUcxf4MCCzr2MLaGlnu2LfgcOFKVjCk0g/2Z553 GFsfjOyHb8XhVVi5K+TAQtTmbJdWGaYfEbkyb1yIpsdXwUTrOCHv1VvletA5m/yQ7ZKR hdz8TbBa6M74U8CW3zmSM6r2Q8CNRbvRSBb3OXF05ZkMfoarZ27MP5o2HufT761JxL8g K++5k1F0N9UXTieM2pWNWgzOnWGPr4IsjW7h4ZfZeyCkJlsc+dTOs7Vj6imFQQRzsEZq deIj/3TC1Mdah8yFFdtHDxfImpRRhWt1r8txJGjcebE0dIOi4sO/RsnzBF/iTIkpN37C 0UbA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXzDfhceDfx7yiS14K3Gthv6JMg5iW6tihM84ciCxemkuBGo2vE +IZIxZF00HR6hOZUeJR5LHm0DUJVjuI6QFe9z2c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2xNCW/8kYM6rvP+I1S917jffSjjcpcgktoZUn5oT02SLEGzVWyCQGBMdNWZAQiq3xYOwJxKMdXgWXtlwjklE= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d099:: with SMTP id s25mr23279241vsi.175.1566425303730; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:08:12 -0700 Message-ID: To: Ulysse Carion Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cbcd6a0590a7cf86" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "integer" in JSON X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:08:28 -0000 --000000000000cbcd6a0590a7cf86 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" You're correct about the intent. Something like this: INTEGER: a NUMBER as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] but without any fraction component, i.e., conforming to the "int" ABNF in that section. -MSK On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:54 PM Ulysse Carion wrote: > Hi all, > > Section 6.2.1 of RFC 7071 > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7071#section-6.2.1) says: > > > INTEGER: an "integer" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] > > But JSON does not explicitly define integers. Perhaps the "int" ABNF > rule was what was meant? > > The word "integer" only appears in passing here: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627#section-2.4 > > Thanks, > Ulysse > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep > --000000000000cbcd6a0590a7cf86 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You're correct about the intent.=C2=A0 Something = like this:

INTEGER: a NUMBER as defined in Section 2.4 of= [JSON] but without any fraction component, i.e., conforming to the "i= nt" ABNF in that section.

-MSK

On Mo= n, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:54 PM Ulysse Carion <ulysse@segment.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Section 6.2.1 of RFC 7071
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7071#section-6.2.1<= /a>) says:

> INTEGER:=C2=A0 an "integer" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JS= ON]

But JSON does not explicitly define integers. Perhaps the "int" A= BNF
rule was what was meant?

The word "integer" only appears in passing here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627#section-2.4
Thanks,
Ulysse

_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
--000000000000cbcd6a0590a7cf86-- From nobody Wed Aug 21 15:09:57 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5516A1200A1 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:09:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=segment.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id esE6NpnWzTTs for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9081200F4 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id 18so7785500ioe.10 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:09:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=segment.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OOzKbvVRlvA4MkH4BsFJRC7Bje6tsEHaikkvFPcGz0A=; b=EtnFuD88mSTpQI1YE9mwRRw6LNS6c31b9dChzBQvToTd09AuKYZjJ/zpU/t2/GnRPa 55Th1n4gwTOaNYGlgtxMCB0tuCyCl6pKhVO+USnX486akvdiO5zPltasIAigFmT04fC+ EfxmIV2e0EpxSp6MI3gRlu+CgeN5fED0/+d4g= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OOzKbvVRlvA4MkH4BsFJRC7Bje6tsEHaikkvFPcGz0A=; b=Pv3qjRoSlFpgFs/420CqQZy7dGmdKKIfrYcIBOcxYKZqbG3UWYfSM1FldZZxJdHnkY y5u0GMPxmHvnqGZAMaMhbt+rSGbtetIXcK7K95FqKvByu1Hingb7sc3IFfekQ1F10H7u O2qiDkKVwHqH20ovmxCsy9nxoOSfkp7haz65RqtcuIUdONzFTFFPcQoHX3/BhtRpj3fy NtdhR3E/sxUaBzqh2AfsfM1UmEmnRAwzUEbPfJrJp7Hyy81SfzCSk6VdUMpwSe8SWDiX PB18FA9F95CeBkBt5kYsIX06Iyuxk78oGwfnY4FIs+KYoJDMjvmipv7ssoQFuGQrnOyp ublw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXlsxCj/UCa/s9LFHmlM3xI4coL7SkxGix2MpmgoS672AsvX2bt Q6IeQCaq45lkm9ZsXSEXvj4JmnlLoukUanN0Vk9y8A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy5k7Ua+QVcG5dA3bRNlx5faw9NJxOCaqdh3OAQ3jxUw36U9jzboFJ8HG1c1wxhbXgXzC/G63gpdhA9RMaYU8s= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:888a:: with SMTP id d10mr5481968ioo.201.1566425391167; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:09:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ulysse Carion Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:09:40 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Cc: domainrep@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "integer" in JSON X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:09:55 -0000 Makes sense! Is adding an erratum to the RFC in order? On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:08 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > You're correct about the intent. Something like this: > > INTEGER: a NUMBER as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] but without any fraction component, i.e., conforming to the "int" ABNF in that section. > > -MSK > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:54 PM Ulysse Carion wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Section 6.2.1 of RFC 7071 >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7071#section-6.2.1) says: >> >> > INTEGER: an "integer" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] >> >> But JSON does not explicitly define integers. Perhaps the "int" ABNF >> rule was what was meant? >> >> The word "integer" only appears in passing here: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627#section-2.4 >> >> Thanks, >> Ulysse >> >> _______________________________________________ >> domainrep mailing list >> domainrep@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From nobody Wed Aug 21 15:48:14 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BF1120130 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:48:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYVfbt8PoMWv for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0773120110 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p548DCCB9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46DN9N1QqDzyTK; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:48:08 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:48:07 +0200 Cc: Ulysse Carion , domainrep@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 588120485.810873-ce1383a7bc517e3810f08b46a2ce65e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [domainrep] Possible erratum in RFC 7071: "integer" in JSON X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:48:12 -0000 On Aug 22, 2019, at 00:08, Murray S. Kucherawy = wrote: >=20 > INTEGER: a NUMBER as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] but without any = fraction component, i.e., conforming to the =E2=80=9Cint" ABNF in that = section. But that=E2=80=99s not how it works: You don=E2=80=99t get to change = JSON=E2=80=99s ABNF as a JSON application. The numbers 2, 2.0, 2.00, 2e0, 2.0e0, 0.2e1 etc. all mean exactly the = same thing in JSON. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten