RFC Errata
RFC 5162, "IMAP4 Extensions for Quick Mailbox Resynchronization", March 2008
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7162
Source of RFC: lemonade (app)
Errata ID: 3323
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jan Kundrát
Date Reported: 2012-08-16
Rejected by: Pete Resnick
Date Rejected: 2012-11-04
Throughout the document, when it says:
The "ENABLE QRESYNC"/"ENABLE QRESYNC CONDSTORE" command also tells the server that it SHOULD start sending VANISHED responses (see Section 3.6) instead of EXPUNGE responses.
It should say:
The "ENABLE QRESYNC"/"ENABLE QRESYNC CONDSTORE" command also tells the server that it MUST start sending VANISHED responses (see Section 3.6) instead of EXPUNGE responses.
Notes:
The explicit allowance for EXPUNGE being sent instead of VANISHED means that clients still have to maintain a full sequence-to-UID mapping, otherwise there is a risk of losing synchronization. Given that QRESYNC itself is an optional extension, I find it hard to imagine a case where the server cannot send a proper VANISHED response.
If this errata gets accepted, it will require rather heavy editing of the document; the notion of EXPUNGE responses being allowed is followed throughout the whole RFC, including the examples.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The fact that this is a change to a normative requirement of the document, and (as the notes say) the fact that it would cause extensive changes to the rest of the document, makes it inappropriate as an erratum.