Linda, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this
document.
Lars
> On Aug 10, 2023, at 21:18, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> R
I'm also quite puzzled by this review.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:18 AM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Major issues:
> The major issue is that this document should not be “Standard Track”
> because:
> 1. Existing parsers for JSON data don’t need to change to comply
With respect, I disagree with the reviewer's characterization of the
document and thus with her conclusion.
As she says, this specification does not specify nor require any behavior
of JSON parsers, as specified at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259.html#section-9 - it is orthogonal to
RFC825
(speaking only for myself here as a JSON Path enthusiast)
Thank you for your review, but I strongly disagree and I'm concerned you've
misunderstood the purpose of the document and its aims for extensibility and
interoperability. To reply to the three points you have raised:
1. The document aims
