RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 2049, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", November 1996

Source of RFC: 822ext (app)

Errata ID: 3933
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Peter Occil
Date Reported: 2014-03-26
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2014-05-07

Section 2 says:

    (10)  Conforming user agents must be able to distinguish
          encoded-words from "text", "ctext", or "word"s,
          according to the rules in section 4, anytime they
          appear in appropriate places in message headers.

It should say:

    (10)  Conforming user agents must be able to distinguish
          encoded-words from "text", "ctext", or "word"s,
          according to the rules in section 3.2.2 of [RFC5322], 
          any time they appear in appropriate places in 
          message headers.

Notes:

The correct reference at publication was Section 3.3 of RFC 822; Section 3.2.2 of RFC 5322 is currently correct. In any case, Section 4 of RFC 2049 was never right.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 2049, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", November 1996

Source of RFC: 822ext (app)

Errata ID: 5470
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Peter Occil
Date Reported: 2018-08-17
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2019-04-30

Section 2 says:

    (3)   Must treat any unrecognized Content-Transfer-Encoding
          as if it had a Content-Type of "application/octet-
          stream", regardless of whether or not the actual
          Content-Type is recognized.

It should say:

    (3)   Treat any MIME entity with an unrecognized
          Content-Transfer-Encoding
          as if it had a Content-Type of "application/octet-
          stream", regardless of whether or not the actual
          Content-Type is recognized.

Notes:

The original text spoke of a "Content-Transfer-Encoding" with a "Content-Type", which makes no sense. This paragraph was probably intended instead to apply to MIME entities (messages and body parts).

----- Verifier Notes -----
I think most readers will understand that something like "MIME entity with" was intentionally elided in the existing text, but it's worth recording this for consideration when the spec is revised.

Report New Errata