RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (3)
RFC 4551, "IMAP Extension for Conditional STORE Operation or Quick Flag Changes Resynchronization", June 2006
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7162
Source of RFC: imapext (app)
Errata ID: 3509
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Pete Maclean
Date Reported: 2013-03-05
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2013-03-05
Section 3.2 says:
Example 5: C: c101 STORE 1 (UNCHANGEDSINCE 12121230045) -FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted) S: * OK [HIGHESTMODSEQ 12111230047] S: * 50 FETCH (MODSEQ (12111230048)) S: c101 OK Store (conditional) completed
It should say:
Example 5: C: c101 STORE 50 (UNCHANGEDSINCE 12121230045) -FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted) S: * OK [HIGHESTMODSEQ 12111230047] S: * 50 FETCH (MODSEQ (12111230048)) S: c101 OK Store (conditional) completed
Notes:
Since successful conditional stores MUST return the FETCH (MODSEQ) data for every message that was changed, the untagged FETCH response in this example should refer to the same message as the STORE command. To avoid any suggestion that 1 might be a special case, I have made the correction to use 50 in both contexts.
Errata ID: 3401
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Slusarz
Date Reported: 2012-11-08
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2012-11-08
Section 3.2 says:
However, if the mod-sequence of any metadata item of the message is greater than the specified UNCHANGEDSINCE value, then the requested operation MUST NOT be performed. In this case, the mod-sequence attribute of the message is not updated, and the message number (or unique identifier in the case of the UID STORE command) is added to the list of messages that failed the UNCHANGESINCE test. When the server finished performing the operation on all the messages in the message set, it checks for a non-empty list of messages that failed the UNCHANGESINCE test. If this list is non-empty, the server MUST return in the tagged response a MODIFIED response code. The MODIFIED response code includes the message set (for STORE) or set of UIDs (for UID STORE) of all messages that failed the UNCHANGESINCE test. Example 3: All messages pass the UNCHANGESINCE test. C: a103 UID STORE 6,4,8 (UNCHANGEDSINCE 12121230045) +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted) S: * 1 FETCH (UID 4 MODSEQ (12121231000)) S: * 2 FETCH (UID 6 MODSEQ (12121230852)) S: * 4 FETCH (UID 8 MODSEQ (12121130956)) S: a103 OK Conditional Store completed
It should say:
However, if the mod-sequence of any metadata item of the message is greater than the specified UNCHANGEDSINCE value, then the requested operation MUST NOT be performed. In this case, the mod-sequence attribute of the message is not updated, and the message number (or unique identifier in the case of the UID STORE command) is added to the list of messages that failed the UNCHANGEDSINCE test. When the server finished performing the operation on all the messages in the message set, it checks for a non-empty list of messages that failed the UNCHANGEDSINCE test. If this list is non-empty, the server MUST return in the tagged response a MODIFIED response code. The MODIFIED response code includes the message set (for STORE) or set of UIDs (for UID STORE) of all messages that failed the UNCHANGEDSINCE test. Example 3: All messages pass the UNCHANGEDSINCE test. C: a103 UID STORE 6,4,8 (UNCHANGEDSINCE 12121230045) +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted) S: * 1 FETCH (UID 4 MODSEQ (12121231000)) S: * 2 FETCH (UID 6 MODSEQ (12121230852)) S: * 4 FETCH (UID 8 MODSEQ (12121130956)) S: a103 OK Conditional Store completed
Notes:
This erratum changes "UNCHANGESINCE" to "UNCHANGEDSINCE" in four places.
Errata ID: 3506
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Hoa V. DINH
Date Reported: 2013-03-01
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2013-03-01
Section 4. says:
resp-text-code =/ "HIGHESTMODSEQ" SP mod-sequence-value / "NOMODSEQ" / "MODIFIED" SP set
It should say:
resp-text-code =/ "HIGHESTMODSEQ" SP mod-sequence-value / "NOMODSEQ" / "MODIFIED" SP sequence-set
Notes:
RFC 1730 and RFC 2060 mentioned "set". It's been changed to sequence-set in RFC 3501.
Therefore, I think the same name should be applied in RFC 4551.