|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
The referred RFCs were published via the Independent Stream Editor (ISE).
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This recommendation follows JSON canonicalization as specified in the reference.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=8785
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC has been implemented in code in various languages and is used in several industry sectors already.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Information document published via the Independent Stream Editor (ISE).
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
References within the referenced RFCs are listed under item (8).
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[ECMA-262]/
ECMA International, "ECMAScript 2019 Language Specification", Standard ECMA-262 10th Edition, June 2019, ./
/
[IEEE754]/
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229, ./
/
[RFC2119]/
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, ./
/
[RFC7493]/
Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493, DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015, ./
/
[RFC8174]/
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, ./
/
[RFC8259]/
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, ./
/
[UCNORM]/
The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Normalization Forms", ./
/
[UNICODE]/
The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard", .
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
None
|
|
