RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 7889, "The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension", May 2016

Source of RFC: imapapnd (art)

Errata ID: 5726
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Stan Kalisch
Date Reported: 2019-05-20
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2019-05-20

Section 3.2 says:

   C: t1 LIST "" % RETURN (STATUS (APPENDLIMIT))
   S: * LIST () "."  "INBOX"
   S: * STATUS "INBOX" (APPENDLIMIT 257890)
   S: t1 OK List completed.

It should say:

   C: t1 LIST "" % RETURN (STATUS (APPENDLIMIT))
   S: * LIST () "." "INBOX"
   S: * STATUS "INBOX" (APPENDLIMIT 257890)
   S: t1 OK List completed.

Notes:

Line 198 contains two spaces between ""."" and ""INBOX"" instead of one. While I had the instinct to mark this as editorial, this sample server response, whose genesis appears to be RFC 5819, ended up in two IDs (which were corrected before they became RFCs) as well. In any event, given that this response also violates the ABNF, and given the RFC Ed.'s guideline on ambiguity, I'm just marking it as technical. I'll leave it to others more familiar with the practical issues for various implementers to make the final determination on how to label it.

----- Verifier notes -----
Yes, this is an error: it comes from a combination of the RFC Editor style of double-spacing between sentences, the construction of the examples in XML in a manner that doesn't distinguish them from sentences, and the fact that it's nearly impossible to notice the situation when one is giving a final review.

Editorial, though, because it's in examples. The ABNF is the authoritative place, and that's correct.

Report New Errata