|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved as standards track document (Internet Standard) in December 2017. Also known as STD 90.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This recommendation uses JSON 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/?draft=&rfc=8259&submit=rfc&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 8259 was published in December 2017 and is a standards track RFC. This document provides the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Internet Standard also known as STD 90. It obsoletes RFC 7159.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
Normative References:/
[ECMA-404] Ecma International, "The JSON Data Interchange Format", Standard ECMA-404./
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE 754./
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997./
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003./
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008./
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174./
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard"./
/
Informative References:/
[ECMA-262] Ecma International, "ECMAScript Language Specification", Standard ECMA-262, Third Edition, December 1999./
[Err3607] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3607, RFC 4627./
[Err3915] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 3915, RFC 7159./
[Err4264] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4264, RFC 7159./
[Err4336] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4336, RFC 7159./
[Err4388] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4388, RFC 7159./
[Err607] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 607, RFC 4627./
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, DOI 10.17487/RFC4627, July 2006./
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March 2014.
|
|
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.
|
|
