Ballot for draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Alvaro: I think you are correct. I've added an RFC Editor note.
- section 9: This allows limits for nesting depth, number range and precision, and string length. Can you offer any guidance about what sorts of limits might be reasonable? Or what limits might unreasonably impact interoperability? - 12, 2nd paragraph: This paragraph sort of buries the lede. I thought it was going to talk about the implications of not being able to parse certain JSON legal characters with eval(), but I understand it really about the risk of arbitrary executable content. I suggest you say that in the first sentence.
I don't see a response to the first part of the SecDir review on the Security Considerations section. Given the content of the current security considerations section, I agree with Ben that the additional considerations he mentions should be included. Can someone respond to Ben please on that part of his review? Thank you.