RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 2822, "Internet Message Format", April 2001

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5322

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5335, RFC 5336

Source of RFC: drums (app)

Errata ID: 373
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Frank Ellermann
Date Reported: 2006-01-10
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2010-05-21

Section 3.2.6 says: 

   unstructured    =       *([FWS] utext) [FWS]

It should say:

   unstructured    =       *([FWS] utext) (*WSP / obs-FWS)

Notes:

A prominent example is the <subject> defined in section 3.6.5:

subject = "Subject:" unstructured CRLF

Expanding the [FWS] at the end (ignoring <obs-FWS>) results in:

subject = "Subject:" *([FWS] utext) [[*WSP CRLF] 1*WSP] CRLF


Alexey: note that this was fixed in RFC 5322 (which obsoleted RFC 2821) in a slightly different way.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 2822, "Internet Message Format", April 2001

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 5322

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5335, RFC 5336

Source of RFC: drums (app)

Errata ID: 8155
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: 林博仁(Buo-ren Lin)
Date Reported: 2024-10-23
Rejected by: RFC Editor
Date Rejected: 2024-10-24

Section 2.1.1 says: 

Again, even though this limitation is put on
   messages, it is encumbant upon implementations which display messages
   to handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in a line
   (certainly at least up to the 998 character limit) for the sake of
   robustness.

It should say:

Again, even though this limitation is put on 
   messages, it is incumbent upon implementations which display messages
   to handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in a line 
   (certainly at least up to the 998 character limit) for the sake of 
   robustness.

Notes:

"encumbant" seems to be a typo of "incumbent".
--VERIFIER NOTES--
RFC 2822 is obsoleted by RFC 5322, and this typo was corrected in RFC 5322. The RFC Editor is thus rejecting this erratum per #7 on the “IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream” (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/).

Report New Errata



Advanced Search