RFC 8259, "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", December 2017

Errata ID: 6208
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: David Golden
Date Reported: 2020-06-10
Rejected by: Barry Leiba
Date Rejected: 2020-06-10

Section 8.1 says:

In the interests of interoperability, implementations that parse JSON texts MAY ignore the presence of a byte order mark rather than treating it as an error.

It should say:

In the interests of interoperability, implementations that parse JSON texts MAY ignore the presence of a byte order mark or MAY interpret a byte order mark to indicate an alternate encoding rather than treating it as an error.

Notes:

The original line is copied from previous RFCs that specifically allowed alternate encodings. In the context of a new, UTF-8 only restriction, interoperability provisions should also address interpreting legacy formats that predate the restriction. By omission, readers may conclude that the *only* option for a BOM is to ignore or error.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This is asking to revisit what we have consensus on, not a report of an error in the RFC.
The working group had extensive discussions on BOMs, and chose this particular working purposefully.

Report New Errata