RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 6196, "Moving mailserver: URI Scheme to Historic", March 2011
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: app
Errata ID: 2756
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-03-25
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick
Throughout the document, when it says:
mailserver: URI Scheme
It should say:
'mailserver' URI Scheme
Notes:
The ":" (colon) character is not a part of URI scheme name. RFC 3986 says:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )
i. e. ":" is a delimiter between scheme name and the remainder of URI.
Errata ID: 2916
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-08-04
Held for Document Update by: Pete Resnick
Section 1 says:
There were some previous attempts to provide detailed documentation of the mailserver: URI scheme, but those efforts were not successful. Implementors interested in providing instructions for generating an email [RFC5322] message can instead use the mailto: URI scheme [RFC6068]. Implementors interested in referencing a message or a set of messages available from a mailstore over IMAP [RFC3501], POP [RFC1939], or web [RFC2616] can instead use the imap: [RFC5092], pop: [RFC2384] or http: [RFC2616] URIs, respectively.
It should say:
There were some previous attempts to provide detailed documentation of the 'mailserver' URI scheme, but those efforts were not successful. Implementors interested in providing instructions for generating an email [RFC5322] message can instead use the 'mailto' URI scheme [RFC6068]. Implementors interested in referencing a message or a set of messages available from a mailstore over IMAP [RFC3501], POP [RFC1939], or web [RFC2616] can instead use the 'imap' [RFC5092], 'pop' [RFC2384] or 'http' [RFC2616] URIs, respectively.
Notes:
This is a complement to Erratum 2756 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2756); see justification there.