Skip to main content

An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath) Selectors
draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Lisa Dusseault
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Chris Newman
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Ward
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2008-09-11
04 (System) This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-simple-partial-notify, draft-ietf-simple-partial-pidf-format, draft-ietf-simple-partial-publish
2008-06-18
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-06-18
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-06-18
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-06-11
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2008-06-10
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-06-10
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-06-10
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-06-10
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-06-10
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-06-10
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2008-04-04
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2008-04-04
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-04-01
04 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Ward has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Ward
2008-02-27
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2007-12-08
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Lisa Dusseault
2007-11-29
04 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Chris Newman
2007-11-16
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-11-16
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-04.txt
2007-11-01
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2007-11-01
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza
2007-11-01
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-11-01
04 Chris Newman
[Ballot comment]
I'm concerned about one design choice for the xml-patch-ops format.

IMHO, it would be highly desirable if the schema for the document to …
[Ballot comment]
I'm concerned about one design choice for the xml-patch-ops format.

IMHO, it would be highly desirable if the schema for the document to be patched could largely be used on the patch itself.  While most structural
constraints wouldn't carry across well, it would be very nice if value
typing constraints were reusable.  Unfortunately, the use of entity
values in the patch to carry attribute values for the final document
makes such reuse problematic.

Were I designing a format like this, instead of this:
  Bob
I'd prefer something like this:
 
this way the patch retains attribute/value structure that parallels the
document to be patched and the schema attribute validation for attribute
"user" of entity "foo" can be applied to both the patch and the
final document.

I suspect it's too late to consider changing this, but it is a design
consideration for this sort of thing.
2007-11-01
04 Chris Newman
[Ballot discuss]
This format uses XPath.  What are the security considerations of XPath
and do they impact this format?  What happens if this format is …
[Ballot discuss]
This format uses XPath.  What are the security considerations of XPath
and do they impact this format?  What happens if this format is
interpreted by a XPath 2.0 processor (with a loop construct)?  I find
the claim that patching introduces no new security considerations highly
dubious.

I share Lisa's concern about the lack of error handling.

draft-ietf-simple-partial-pidf-format-08.txt:

The encoding considerations for the media type are incorrect.
The encoding is 7-bit, 8-bit or binary depending on the charset
(UTF-16 is binary data from a MIME perspective because it contains
NUL octets).

The security considerations for the media type are incomplete.  Please
answer at least the MUST question in BCP 13 section 4.6.

Q: Are processors required to support an application/pidf-diff+xml
document that uses a different charset from the document it is modifying?
Is this a potential interoperability problem?
2007-11-01
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-11-01
04 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2007-10-31
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-10-31
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-10-31
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2007-10-31
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2007-10-31
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-10-31
04 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by David Ward
2007-10-30
04 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2007-10-30
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2007-10-27
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-10-26
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jeffrey Hutzelman.
2007-10-19
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-10-18
2007-10-15
04 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2007-10-12
04 Jon Peterson State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Jon Peterson
2007-10-12
04 Jon Peterson Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-10-18 by Jon Peterson
2007-10-12
04 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jon Peterson
2007-10-12
04 Jon Peterson Ballot has been issued by Jon Peterson
2007-10-12
04 Jon Peterson Created "Approve" ballot
2007-09-27
04 Jon Peterson Merged with draft-ietf-simple-partial-notify by Jon Peterson
2007-09-25
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2007-09-13
04 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "(XML) schema" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html

ID …
IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "(XML) schema" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html

ID URI Filename Reference
------ ---------------------- ----------
-------------
xml-patch-ops urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:xml-patch-ops [xml-patch-ops]
[RFC-simple-xml-patch-ops-03]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.
2007-09-13
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2007-09-13
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2007-09-11
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-09-11
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-09-11
04 Jon Peterson Last Call was requested by Jon Peterson
2007-09-11
04 Jon Peterson State Changes to Last Call Requested from Expert Review by Jon Peterson
2007-09-11
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-09-11
04 (System) Last call text was added
2007-09-11
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-08-09
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-03.txt
2007-04-16
04 Jon Peterson State Changes to Expert Review from AD Evaluation by Jon Peterson
2006-08-31
04 Jon Peterson State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jon Peterson
2006-07-07
04 Dinara Suleymanova
PROTO Write-up

1) The chairs have reviewed this version of the ID and
ask that the IESG consider it for publication.

2) This document has …
PROTO Write-up

1) The chairs have reviewed this version of the ID and
ask that the IESG consider it for publication.

2) This document has received significant input and review
both inside and outside the working group. (Ted Hardie and
Scott Hollenbeck were actively engaged during its development.
The scope of the problem this draft addresses was informed by
a BOF at IETF64).

3) The chairs have no specific concerns around additional needed
review, but note that the XML expertise in the WG as a whole
is rather dilute. The draft has received the attention of several
expert individuals who have been in position to call it to the
attention of other key members of the IETF community.

4) The scope of this document has been examined many times. Its current
position reflects a forged consensus: Providing a patching model
that
is strong enough to meet the needs of the SIMPLE protocol suite,
generalizing
where the generality didn't increase complexity, but not
attempting to define a
full XML diff format.

5) There is strong working group consensus behind this document, but
it is a
consensus built among a small portion of the working group as
active participants
(around a dozen people) with the rest of the working group
relying on their
opinions.

6) There has been no indication of appeal or extreme discontent.
There is a
constituency that would like to solve the general XML
differencing problem
instead of solving this smaller patch problem.

7) This document conforms to the requirements in ID-nits.

8) The document appropriately separates normative and informative
references.
Reference 14 (xcap-diff) is oddly formatted, but not so stange as
to require
a revision before this publication request.

9) Announcement Writeups:

Technical Summary
Extensible Markup Language (XML) documents are widely used as
containers for the exchange and storage of arbitrary data in today's
systems. Updates to this data require transporting of the entire
XML
document between hosts, unless there's a mechanism that allows
exchanging only the updates of XML documents. This document
describes an XML patch framework utilizing XML Path language (XPath)
selectors. These selector values and updated new data content
constitute the basis of patch operations described in this document.
In addition to them, with basic ,  and
directives a set of patches can then be applied to update an
existing
XML document.

Working Group Summary
This document reflects the consensus of the SIMPLE working group,
and was
informed by the xmlpatch BOF at IETF64.

Protocol Quality
Robert Sparks is the PROTO shepherd for this document.
2006-07-07
04 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2006-03-08
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-02.txt
2006-01-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-01.txt
2005-11-30
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops-00.txt