errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC6196, "Moving mailserver: URI Scheme to Historic", March 2011

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

Errata ID: 2756

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-03-25
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick

Throughout the document, when it says:

mailserver: URI Scheme

It should say:

'mailserver' URI Scheme

Notes:

The ":" (colon) character is not a part of URI scheme name. RFC 3986 says:

URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )

i. e. ":" is a delimiter between scheme name and the remainder of URI.


Errata ID: 2916

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-08-04
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick

Section 1 says:

   There were some previous attempts to provide detailed documentation
   of the mailserver: URI scheme, but those efforts were not successful.
   Implementors interested in providing instructions for generating an
   email [RFC5322] message can instead use the mailto: URI scheme
   [RFC6068].  Implementors interested in referencing a message or a set
   of messages available from a mailstore over IMAP [RFC3501], POP
   [RFC1939], or web [RFC2616] can instead use the imap: [RFC5092], pop:
   [RFC2384] or http: [RFC2616] URIs, respectively.

It should say:

   There were some previous attempts to provide detailed documentation
   of the 'mailserver' URI scheme, but those efforts were not successful.
   Implementors interested in providing instructions for generating an
   email [RFC5322] message can instead use the 'mailto' URI scheme
   [RFC6068].  Implementors interested in referencing a message or a set
   of messages available from a mailstore over IMAP [RFC3501], POP
   [RFC1939], or web [RFC2616] can instead use the 'imap' [RFC5092], 'pop'
   [RFC2384] or 'http' [RFC2616] URIs, respectively.

Notes:

This is a complement to Erratum 2756 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2756); see justification there.


Report New Errata