RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 2049, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", November 1996
Source of RFC: 822ext (app)
Errata ID: 3933
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Peter Occil
Date Reported: 2014-03-26
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2014-05-07
Section 2 says:
(10) Conforming user agents must be able to distinguish encoded-words from "text", "ctext", or "word"s, according to the rules in section 4, anytime they appear in appropriate places in message headers.
It should say:
(10) Conforming user agents must be able to distinguish encoded-words from "text", "ctext", or "word"s (see the grammar in Section 3.3 of [RFC822]), according to the recognition rules in Section 6 of [RFC2047], any time they appear in appropriate places in message headers.
Notes:
Section 4 of RFC 2049 was not the correct citation.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 2049, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", November 1996
Source of RFC: 822ext (app)
Errata ID: 5470
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Peter Occil
Date Reported: 2018-08-17
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2019-04-30
Section 2 says:
(3) Must treat any unrecognized Content-Transfer-Encoding as if it had a Content-Type of "application/octet- stream", regardless of whether or not the actual Content-Type is recognized.
It should say:
(3) Treat any MIME entity with an unrecognized Content-Transfer-Encoding as if it had a Content-Type of "application/octet- stream", regardless of whether or not the actual Content-Type is recognized.
Notes:
The original text spoke of a "Content-Transfer-Encoding" with a "Content-Type", which makes no sense. This paragraph was probably intended instead to apply to MIME entities (messages and body parts).
----- Verifier Notes -----
I think most readers will understand that something like "MIME entity with" was intentionally elided in the existing text, but it's worth recording this for consideration when the spec is revised.