errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC3798, "Message Disposition Notification", May 2004

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 692

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-10-20
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2010-11-12

Section Several says:

(2) disposition modifiers
=========================

  The disposition modifiers "warning", "superseded", "expired",
  "mailbox-terminated" have not seen actual implementation. They have
  been deleted from this document.


Accordingly, the syntax production "disposition-type" in section 3.2.6.
(on page 14) and section 7. (on mid-page 22) has been changed to read:

    disposition-modifier = "error" / disposition-modifier-extension

Nevertheless, one of these 'removed' modifiers disposition is
mentioned in the text of RFC 3798:

o  "warning" :

   - section 3.2.7. , 3rd line of text on page 16


It should say:

<Remove any references to "warning">

Notes:

Alexey: The editors have this change in their editorial copy of -bis.


Status: Rejected (1)

RFC3798, "Message Disposition Notification", May 2004

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 691

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-10-20
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2011-11-12

Appendix A

(1) disposition types
=====================
The dispositions "denied" and "failed" were removed from the
document reflecting the lack of implementation or usage ...


Now, the syntax production "disposition-type" in section 3.2.6. (on
page 14) and section 7. (on mid-page 22) has been changed to read:

    disposition-type = "displayed" / "deleted"

This means that the RFC 2298 disposition types "dispatched" and
"processed" have been removed from the syntax definitions as well!

Thus, either Appendix A lacks mentioning these removals  OR  these
items should not have been removed from the syntax definitions.

Nevertheless, all these disposition types removed from the syntax are
mentioned at many places throughout RFC 3798:

o  "dispatched" :

   - section 3.2.6. , final paragraph of the section on page 16
   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18

o  "processed" :

   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
   - section 5. , 4th paragraph on page 18

o  "denied" :

   - section 2.1. , bottom of page 4
   - section 2.1. , end of 3rd paragraph on page 5
   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18
   - section 6.2. , end of first paragraph on page 19

o  "failed" :

   - section 2.2. , middle of second-to-last paragraph on page 6
   - section 2.2. , middle of second paragraph on page 7 (twice)
   - section 2.2. , third paragraph on page 7 (twice)
   - section 3.2.7. , in 2nd text line, on page 16
                    (mis-spelled "failure" there)
   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17
   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18

All these places in the text deal with the issue/sending/generation
of MDNs with the named deprecated disposition types (it would be
acceptable to talk about what to do with *received* such disposition
types for backwards compatibility with RFC 2298) !

It should say:

[not submitted]

Notes:

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Clearly this document is a mess. The solution is to publish an RFC that cleans up the mess (and verifies that there is indeed consensus to remove the "denied" and "failed" dispositions), not to handle this via the errata process.


Report New Errata