RFC 2045, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", November 1996

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 2184, RFC 2231, RFC 5335, RFC 6532

Errata ID: 3950
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Peter Occil
Date Reported: 2014-04-03
Rejected by: Barry Leiba
Date Rejected: 2014-04-03

Section 4 says:

   NOTE TO IMPLEMENTORS:  When checking MIME-Version values any RFC 822
   comment strings that are present must be ignored.  In particular, the
   following four MIME-Version fields are equivalent:

     MIME-Version: 1.0

     MIME-Version: 1.0 (produced by MetaSend Vx.x)

     MIME-Version: (produced by MetaSend Vx.x) 1.0

     MIME-Version: 1.(produced by MetaSend Vx.x)0

It should say:

   NOTE TO IMPLEMENTORS:  When checking MIME-Version values any RFC 822
   comment strings that are present must be ignored.  In particular, the
   following three MIME-Version fields are equivalent:

     MIME-Version: 1.0

     MIME-Version: 1.0 (produced by MetaSend Vx.x)

     MIME-Version: (produced by MetaSend Vx.x) 1.0

Notes:

Under RFC 822, a comment placed between two lexical symbols, in the case of the fourth example given, between the dot and the zero, is equivalent to a single space. Accordingly, the fourth example would result in the field "MIME-Version: 1. 0", which is not exactly equivalent to the previous three examples.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
It is exactly equivalent, because, while the lexical parsing puts a blank in, the parsing of the MIME-Version value then ignores the blank.

Report New Errata