Re: [imapext] [Errata Verified] RFC7889 (5726)

["Stan Kalisch" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 20, 2019, at 6:36 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> ----- Verifier notes -----
> Yes, this is an error: it comes from a combination of the RFC Editor style of double-spacing between sentences, the construction of the examples in XML in a manner that doesn't distinguish them from sentences, and the fact that it's nearly impossible to notice the situation when one is giving a final review.
> 
> Editorial, though, because it's in examples. The ABNF is the authoritative place, and that's correct.

This is helpful to know, and when you put it like that, makes complete sense to me. I suppose part of my confusion stems from the fact that I reported an erratum for an example in an RFC about two years ago and it was verified as technical. Is this something that varies across disciplines? This may be helpful information for those who report errors but are not as familiar as others with the IETF and RFC Editor's process.


Thanks,
Stan

> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7889 (draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-10)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension
> Publication Date : May 2016
> Author(s) : J. SrimushnamBoovaraghamoorthy, N. Bisht
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : IMAP APPEND Extensions
> Area : Applications and Real-Time
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
>