Errata Search
RFC Number:		Errata ID:
Source of RFC		Status:	All/Any Verified+Reported Verified Reported Held for Document Update Rejected
Area Acronym:	All/Any app art gen int ops rai rtg sec tsv wit	Type:	All/Any Editorial Technical
WG Acronym:		Submitter Name:
Other:	All/Any IAB INDEPENDENT IRTF Legacy Editorial	Date Submitted:
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 5322, "Internet Message Format", October 2008

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6854

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

---

Errata ID: 2619
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dominic Sayers
Date Reported: 2010-11-10
Rejected by: Pete Resnick
Date Rejected: 2011-05-16

Section 3.4.1 says:

      It is therefore
      incumbent upon implementations to conform to the syntax of
      addresses for the context in which they are used.

It should say:

      Implementations MUST conform to the syntax of
      addresses for the context in which they are used.

Notes:

The phrase "incumbent upon" is not defined in RFC 2119. If another RFC defines a standard with the force of "MUST", then it is not an option for an implementation to ignore that standard. Therefore, implementations MUST conform to their syntax.

This rewording clarifies the recognition that should be given to the RFCs that inform the particular context of the implementation.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Conforming (or failing to conform) to the syntax of another specification does not affect the interoperability of *this* specification. Therefore, RFC 2119 language is not appropriate. However, even if it could be argued that it was, an erratum is not the appropriate place to make such a change.

Report New Errata