Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 5524: URLFETCH=BINARY vs URLAUTH=BINARY

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 21/05/2020 09:04, Дилян Палаузов wrote:

> Hello,
>
> how shall the IANA IMAP Capabilities registry look like
>
> -- SO --
>
> URLAUTH=BINARY 	[RFC5524]
>
> -- OR SO --
>
> URLAUTH=BINARY 	[RFC5524]
> URLFETCH=BINARY INVALID - RFC 5524 has introduced the URLAUTH=BINARY
> capability, but accidentially inserted URLFETCH=BINARY in the IANA
> registry.
I suggest the former and add a note about invalid capability when you 
submit an erratum: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php#reportnew
>
> Regards
>    Дилян
>
> On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 08:15 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Oh.
>> It looks like I made a mistake in the IANA section, that was subtle
>> enough never to be noticed by any of the reviewers or the editors, or
>> indeed IANA. That was clever of me, wasn't it?
>>
>> Given that the specification refers only to URLAUTH in defining the
>> behaviour of the server, I think the IANA section is solely at fault,
>> such means I have managed to get an errata into the registry.
>>
>> Do I get a prize? Or a lifetime ban from writing any more RFCs?
>>
>> Dave.
>>
>> On Tue, 19 May 2020, 16:49 Alexey Melnikov,
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>   
>>>   Hi Дилян,
>>>   On 17/05/2020 15:55, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
>>>   
>>>   
>>>>   
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) Capabilities Registry
>>>> at
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-capabilities/imap-capabilities.xhtml
>>>> says:
>>>>
>>>> URLFETCH=BINARY 	[RFC5524]
>>>>
>>>> and RFC 5524, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5524 says:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3.  Extended URLFETCH
>>>>
>>>>     This extension is available in any IMAP server implementation
>>>> that
>>>>     includes URLAUTH=BINARY within its capability string.
>>>>
>>>> 5. Formal Syntax
>>>>
>>>>     capability       =/ "URLAUTH=BINARY"
>>>>
>>>> 6.  IANA Considerations
>>>>
>>>>     This document defines the URLFETCH=BINARY IMAP capability.
>>>> IANA has
>>>>     added it to the registry accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> My reading is, that the URLAUTH=BINARY and URLFETCH=BINARY
>>>> capabilities
>>>> mean the same.
>>>>   
>>>   I think one of these is a typo. I suspect "URLFETCH=BINARY" should
>>> be "URLAUTH=BINARY", because "URLAUTH" is already registered as a
>>> Capability. Dave?
>>>>   
>>>> Please comment within a month on the following proposal for
>>>> erratum:
>>>>
>>>> New text:
>>>>
>>>> 3.  Extended URLFETCH
>>>>
>>>>     This extension is available in any IMAP server implementation
>>>> that
>>>>     includes URLAUTH=BINARY or URLFETCH=BINARY within its
>>>> capability
>>>>     string.
>>>>
>>>> 5.  Formal Syntax
>>>>
>>>>   capability       =/ "URLAUTH=BINARY" / "URLFETCH=BINARY"
>>>>
>>>>        ; Command parameters; see Section 3.1
>>>>
>>>> 6.  IANA Considerations
>>>>
>>>>     This document defines the URLFETCH=BINARY and the
>>>> URLAUTH=BINARY
>>>> IMAP capabilities.  Both capabilities mean the same. IANA has
>>>> added
>>>> URLFETCH=BINARY and will add URLAUTH=BINARY to the registry
>>>> accordingly.
>>>>   
>>>   If it is a typo, I would edit your suggestion to recommend one or
>>> another, not both.
>>>   Best Regards,
>>>   Alexey
>>>   
>>>   
>>>>   
>>>> I do not insist to do the wording, anybody can take this over.
>>>>
>>>> If there is knowledge, that all implementations have consolidated
>>>> on a
>>>> single capability wording, then the erratum can get smaller.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings
>>>>    Дилян
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> imapext mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
>>>>   
>>>   
>> _______________________________________________
>> imapext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext