RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Reported (2)

RFC 6154, "IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes", March 2011

Source of RFC: morg (app)

Errata ID: 5265
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Roy A. Gilmore
Date Reported: 2018-02-25

Throughout the document, when it says:


Notes:

In RFC6154, the special-use attributes are consistently shown with initial capitals, but there doesn't appear to be any guidance whether the special-use attributes are case-sensitive, case-insensitive, or implementation defined. This could lead to interoperability issues.

Errata ID: 5581
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Not clear whether SPECIAL-USE implies LIST-EXTENDED
Date Reported: 2018-12-21

Section 5.2 says:


     C: t1 CAPABILITY
     S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 SPECIAL-USE
     S: t1 OK done

It should say:


     C: t1 CAPABILITY
     S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 SPECIAL-USE LIST-EXTENDED
     S: t1 OK done

Notes:

Is it okay for a server to support SPECIAL-USE without supporting LIST-EXTENDED? The example seems to imply this, but it's not clear from the RFC text. Section 2 starts with: "For the extended list command [RFC5258]", but doesn't say the server MUST support LIST-EXTENDED.

Report New Errata