|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 4627 (2006)
|
|
Title:
|
The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved as standards track document.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
JASON is used
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
None
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 4627 was published in 2006-07 and available for download from IETF website. Obsoleted by RFC 7159, RFC 7158. Errata exists.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 4627 was published in 2006-07 and available for download from IETF website.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 4627 was published in 2006-07 and available for download from IETF website.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
Normative References/
[ECMA] European Computer Manufacturers Association, "ECMAScript/
Language Specification 3rd Edition", December 1999,/
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files//
ecma-st/ECMA-262.pdf./
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,/
October 1969./
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax/
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005. [2] Anklesaria, F., McCahill, M., Lindner, P., Johnson, D., Torrey,/
D. and B. Alberti, "The Internet Gopher Protocol (a distributed/
document search and retrieval protocol)", RFC 1436, March 1993./
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard Version 4.0",/
2003, http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.1.0/./
|
|
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):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
