RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (3)
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
Source of RFC: 822ext (app)
Errata ID: 2586
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Christopher Yeleighton
Date Reported: 2010-10-28
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2010-11-12
Section 1. says:
All of the header fields defined in this document are subject to the general syntactic rules for header fields specified in RFC 822. In particular, all of these header fields except for Content-Disposition can include RFC 822 comments, which have no semantic content and should be ignored during MIME processing.
It should say:
All of the header fields defined in this document are subject to the general syntactic rules for header fields specified in RFC 822. In particular, all of these header fields can include RFC 822 comments, which have no semantic content and should be ignored during MIME processing.
Notes:
A header field Content-Disposition is not defined in this document. Therefore, the header fields defined in this document do not contain a field Content-Disposition and the exception is not necessary. It is also misleading because it looks as if the exception affected the Content-Disposition field defined in RFC2813 while it does not.
Errata ID: 512
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ned Freed
Date Reported: 2005-02-24
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2009-08-29
Section 5.1 says:
tspecials := "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" / "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <"> "/" / "[" / "]" / "?" / "="
It should say:
tspecials := "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" / "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <"> / "/" / "[" / "]" / "?" / "="
Notes:
Missing alternative separator on the second line.
Errata ID: 7120
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Maciej Szumski
Date Reported: 2022-09-07
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2022-09-07
Section 2.4 says:
Note that this does NOT imply thay they have no meaning at all
It should say:
Note that this does NOT imply that they have no meaning at all
Notes:
Fixing a typo: 'thay' instead of 'that'.