[Extra] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9051 (7246)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 12 November 2022 14:10 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C714C157902 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 06:10:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ja_hLQ1p72Dq for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 06:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B57DFC147930 for <extra@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 06:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 617FE3BA89; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 06:10:55 -0800 (PST)
To: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com, barryleiba@computer.org, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, yaojk@cnnic.cn, brong@fastmailteam.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: mechiel@ueber.net, extra@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221112141055.617FE3BA89@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 06:10:55 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/8pkfDT92ZzQPcdQOnhkkmDrOyvU>
Subject: [Extra] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9051 (7246)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:10:59 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9051, "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7246 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Mechiel Lukkien <mechiel@ueber.net> Section: 7.5.2. Original Text ------------- BINARY[<section-binary>]<<number>> An <nstring> or <literal8> expressing the content of the specified section after removing any encoding specified in the corresponding Content-Transfer-Encoding header field. If <number> is present, it refers to the offset within the DECODED section data. Corrected Text -------------- BINARY[<section-binary>] An <nstring> or <literal8> expressing the content of the specified section after removing any encoding specified in the corresponding Content-Transfer-Encoding header field. Notes ----- While a FETCH _request_ can be "partial" with <...> for both BODY[] and BINARY[], only a FETCH _response_ for BODY[] can have an optional offset. A FETCH _response_ for BINARY[] cannot have an optional offset. At least according to the ABNF, which I believe is leading. See lines 6756 and 6757: msg-att-static = "BODY" section ["<" number ">"] SP nstring / "BINARY" section-binary SP (nstring / literal8) And line 6987: section-binary = "[" [section-part] "]" RFC 3516, IMAP4 Binary Content Extension, from which the original text was probably copied, appears to have the same issue but no errata. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC9051 (draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-30) -------------------------------------- Title : Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2 Publication Date : August 2021 Author(s) : A. Melnikov, Ed., B. Leiba, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Extra] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9051 (7246) RFC Errata System