RFC 5162, "IMAP4 Extensions for Quick Mailbox Resynchronization", March 2008
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7162Source of RFC: lemonade (app)
Errata ID: 3323
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.
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.
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.