The GeoJSON Format
draft-ietf-geojson-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-08-10
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-08-06
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-07-25
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-07-11
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-07-08
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-07-07
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-07-07
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-07-07
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-07-07
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-07-07
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-07-07
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-07-07
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-07-07
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-07-07
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-07-07
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-06-23
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-06-23
|
04 | Sean Gillies | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-06-23
|
04 | Sean Gillies | New version available: draft-ietf-geojson-04.txt |
2016-06-13
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-06-02
|
03 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2016-06-02
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-06-02
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-06-02
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] For the most part, this is clear and readable. I only have a few comments: - I agree with Stephen's comments. - I … [Ballot comment] For the most part, this is clear and readable. I only have a few comments: - I agree with Stephen's comments. - I note several instances of 2119 "MUST" in what looks to me like definitions, rather than requirements. For example, 'For type "MultiPoint", the "coordinates" member MUST be an array of positions.' If that is a choice among options, and you want to make sure implementers do the right thing, then MUST makes sense. On the other hand, if that is really a definitions (e.g. "... the coordinates member is an array of positions"), then MUST is not appropriate. (For the record, I'm not sure which case these fall into.) - Abstract: If I understand correctly, the document only allows a single coordinate system. That’s stronger than “recommends”. - 1.3: Does this document become the authoritative spec? That is, will people need to pay attention to GJ2008 at all after this is published? if not, then maybe "obsoletes" is the correct word. (Recognizing of course that IETF procedure words may not quite apply here.) - 3.1.6, 4th bullet: Why SHOULD? Can you imagine situations where it would be reasonable to not follow the right-hand rule? |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's comments and will follow the responses. |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - The last bullet of section 3 says "any number of other members" and in general there are no limits here on size … [Ballot comment] - The last bullet of section 3 says "any number of other members" and in general there are no limits here on size or complexity of the objects. (There are some should statements, which is good.) I wonder if there's a potential DoS vector there? Speculating, a DoS couuld be based on the CPU if calculations based on the object are complex, or it could be based on the size of the object being VERY BIG. Are either of those realistic? (I'm not saying they are, just asking.) I'm guessing it'd not make sense to have a max size to these things, but is there any guidance that you could offer to implementers or would it be good to say that implementations SHOULD have some maximum size (I don't care how you'd want to measure that) with a recommendation that it be able to handle things up to at least some nominated size? (Section 11.2 does talk about this for senders/creators but says nothing for recipients/readers.) - Section 10: I'd say it'd be good to add a reference to something that describes some of the privacy issues with objects such as these, and with potential mitigations, but more importantly calling out that naively "fuzzing" boundaries may not be as effective as seems at first the case. I took a quick look and didn't find anything that seems really good but maybe something like [1] would be a good reference. [1] http://www.sebastianzimmeck.de/riedererEtAlPhotograph2015ShortPaper.pdf |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] In Section 12: "applications that use this media type: various" - a bit more text about types of applications using it would be … [Ballot comment] In Section 12: "applications that use this media type: various" - a bit more text about types of applications using it would be good! Please provide some examples (this is not supposed to be exhaustive list.) "Author" and "Change Controller" fields are missing from the media type registration. These are especially important as the document was originally developed outside of IETF. |
2016-06-01
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] What are %maxlat%, %minlat%, %eastlon%, and %westlon% supposed to be? I am guessing they are max and min values for latitude and longitude … [Ballot comment] What are %maxlat%, %minlat%, %eastlon%, and %westlon% supposed to be? I am guessing they are max and min values for latitude and longitude (e.g.+/-90 and +/-180) but I think it would be helpful to be explicit here. |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-05-31
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-05-31
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-05-26
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-05-26
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-geojson-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-geojson-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the application media types subspace of the Media Types registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ a single, new application media type will be added as follows: Name: geo+json Template: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that this is the only action that needs to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-05-26
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. |
2016-05-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Suzanne Woolf |
2016-05-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Suzanne Woolf |
2016-05-19
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-05-19
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2016-05-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2016-05-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: geojson@ietf.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com, alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-geojson@ietf.org, geojson-chairs@ietf.org, "Martin … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: geojson@ietf.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com, alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-geojson@ietf.org, geojson-chairs@ietf.org, "Martin Thomson" Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (The GeoJSON Format) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Geographic JSON WG (geojson) to consider the following document: - 'The GeoJSON Format' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-05-31. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract GeoJSON is a geospatial data interchange format based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). It defines several types of JSON objects and the manner in which they are combined to represent data about geographic features, their properties, and their spatial extents. This document recommends a single coordinate reference system based on WGS 84. Other coordinate reference systems are not recommended. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geojson/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geojson/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-06-02 |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-05-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-05-14
|
03 | Martin Thomson | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested? Proposed Standard. This document specifies a protocol format. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary GeoJSON is a geospatial data interchange format based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). Working Group Summary The working group had good discussion around the changes made to this version over the version that was widely deployed. There was good consensus for the changes made (these are summarized in Appendix B). Document Quality GeoJSON is widely implemented and used already. The changes made by the working group are largely formal in nature, though this includes a new media type (the "vnd." prefix has been dropped). The media type change has been proposed and reviewed, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/hUlxdmrz6nid3er1XXK86cgxIkA Considerable debate was had over the inclusion of the "crs" member. The working group has consensus around the text in -03. Personnel Martin Thomson is the document shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the responsible AD. -- A technical and editorial review has been performed by the shepherd and media type (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/hUlxdmrz6nid3er1XXK86cgxIkA) The working group has strong consensus to publish the document. Several of the changes made during the process were a little contentious, but there was consensus on the outcome of each issue. idnits shows only bogus warnings. References are correctly allocated to sections. A single media type is requested of IANA; this has been reviewed. There are no IPR disclosures and authors have acknowledged this. The examples in the document are valid JSON according to jsonlint.com |
2016-05-13
|
03 | Sean Gillies | New version available: draft-ietf-geojson-03.txt |
2016-04-12
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation |
2016-04-12
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-04-07
|
02 | Martin Thomson | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested? Proposed Standard. This document specifies a protocol format. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary GeoJSON is a geospatial data interchange format based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). Working Group Summary The working group had good discussion around the changes made to this version over the version that was widely deployed. There was good consensus for the changes made (these are summarized in Appendix B). Document Quality GeoJSON is widely implemented and used already. The changes made by the working group are largely formal in nature, though this includes a new media type (the "vnd." prefix has been dropped). The media type change has been proposed and reviewed, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/hUlxdmrz6nid3er1XXK86cgxIkA Personnel Martin Thomson is the document shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the responsible AD. -- A technical and editorial review has been performed by the shepherd and media type (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/hUlxdmrz6nid3er1XXK86cgxIkA) The working group has strong consensus to publish the document. Several of the changes made during the process were a little contentious, but there was consensus on the outcome of each issue. idnits shows only bogus warnings. References are correctly allocated to sections. A single media type is requested of IANA; this has been reviewed. There are no IPR disclosures and authors have acknowledged this. The examples in the document are valid JSON according to jsonlint.com |
2016-04-07
|
02 | Martin Thomson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2016-04-07
|
02 | Martin Thomson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2016-04-07
|
02 | Sean Gillies | New version available: draft-ietf-geojson-02.txt |
2016-04-05
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Publication Requested |
2016-04-05
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2016-03-28
|
01 | Martin Thomson | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested? Proposed Standard. This document specifies a protocol format. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary GeoJSON is a geospatial data interchange format based on JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). Working Group Summary The working group had good discussion around the changes made to this version over the version that was widely deployed. There was good consensus for the changes made (these are summarized in Appendix B). Document Quality GeoJSON is widely implemented and used already. The changes made by the working group are largely formal in nature, though this includes a new media type (the "vnd." prefix has been dropped). The media type change has been proposed and reviewed, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/hUlxdmrz6nid3er1XXK86cgxIkA Personnel Martin Thomson is the document shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the responsible AD. -- A technical and editorial review has been performed by the shepherd and media type (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/hUlxdmrz6nid3er1XXK86cgxIkA) The working group has strong consensus to publish the document. Several of the changes made during the process were a little contentious, but there was consensus on the outcome of each issue. idnits shows only bogus warnings. References are correctly allocated to sections. A single media type is requested of IANA; this has been reviewed. There are no IPR disclosures and authors have acknowledged this. The examples in the document are valid JSON according to jsonlint.com |
2016-03-28
|
01 | Martin Thomson | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2016-03-28
|
01 | Martin Thomson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-03-28
|
01 | Martin Thomson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-03-28
|
01 | Martin Thomson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-03-26
|
01 | Martin Thomson | Changed document writeup |
2016-03-26
|
01 | Martin Thomson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2016-03-09
|
01 | Martin Thomson | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-03-09
|
01 | Martin Thomson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-03-09
|
01 | Martin Thomson | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geojson/GwvnuCeFY_BTt_N8Qde8fFtXcno |
2016-03-09
|
01 | Martin Thomson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-03-06
|
01 | Sean Gillies | New version available: draft-ietf-geojson-01.txt |
2016-01-26
|
00 | Martin Thomson | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-16
|
00 | Martin Thomson | Notification list changed to "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> |
2015-11-16
|
00 | Martin Thomson | Document shepherd changed to Martin Thomson |
2015-11-16
|
00 | Naveen Khan | This document now replaces draft-butler-geojson instead of None |
2015-11-16
|
00 | Sean Gillies | New version available: draft-ietf-geojson-00.txt |