Both fixed in SVN; thanks for the review. On 16/12/2012, at 6:32 PM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. > > > Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08 > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date:2012–12–16 > IETF LC End Date: 2012–12–25 > IESG Telechat date: 2013-1-10 > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication. > > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > 1. The document has as the intended status “Informational” while the last call says that the intended status is proposed standard? > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > • In the IANA section the “Encoding considerations: binary”. I noticed that RFC 4627 has a broader description: > “Encoding considerations: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32 > JSON may be represented using UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-32. When JSON is written in UTF-8, JSON is 8bit compatible. When JSON is written in UTF-16 or UTF-32, the binary content-transfer-encoding must be used.” > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/