On 10. Aug 2023, at 20:18, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The major issue is that this document should not be “Standard Track” […] Others have already gone into the details why this very much should be a standards-track document. Let me just add another data point: We already have a standards-track document that solves a similar problem (identifying individual values within JSON values, i.e., parsed JSON texts), RFC 6901 (JSON Pointer). This is in wide use, also within other IETF standards-track specification. Datatracker finds 13 IETF documents and RFCs with normative references (including JSON Patch, JMAP, and JSCalendar) and 8 documents with informative references. Appendix C to the JSONPath document reviewed here explains how JSON Pointer and JSONPath are related [1]: >> JSONPath is not intended as a replacement for, but as a more powerful companion to, JSON Pointer [RFC6901]. The purposes of the two standards are different. >> JSON Pointer is for identifying a single value within a JSON value whose structure is known. >> JSONPath can […] extract […] values from JSON values whose structure is known only in a general way. … and goes on to discuss conversion between the two. The JSONPath specification not only will bring a common standardized base to the 40+ implementations of JSONPath, it will also be used within our standards-track specifications, both as a tool for expressing them and as a format for interchange of information for more powerful JSON value extraction. Grüße, Carsten [1]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-17.html#name-json-pointer -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
