Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 5524: URLFETCH=BINARY vs URLAUTH=BINARY
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 26 May 2020 10:15 UTC
Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AE43A0DB9 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 03:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dkL9oG0WtZeu for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 03:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF733A0DBC for <imapext@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 03:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1590488114; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=uBKTOGNshRTovUUXRaSdbSP4tor3E4tXRXuW7LSk8xI=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=eLhDWxUcVyqE/eXSAPLjT6b0eL7LdFaxdqDBTB+6H8r+Pzx3NSWXhRO8BerM7wRo4eMjNe w/fuNlswdZxFmiF0We++puzBGHnAHYEPOVFShL67eQXebkLAcyLtncB3kf4mFoqXJs7/h2 HutUchWxO/wS6bPpPDvrKasraaWWM98=;
Received: from [172.27.250.249] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.72]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <XszsLwBPtG5z@waldorf.isode.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 11:15:13 +0100
To: Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: imapext@ietf.org
References: <4c6ed7902d8a21b14f59864881096f44f6b3bd24.camel@aegee.org> <d3c1e1ba-9917-c7b0-085b-a658a5f36615@isode.com> <CAKHUCzyn+SLVe0SERXQURBF0K_5WpBaRt6kXxqmnJOTswGXQ3A@mail.gmail.com> <b6732421cbe79d90b33b862a7a5dfc93e264597d.camel@aegee.org>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <712e586e-01fd-9631-a2e5-a6af76a7f5ba@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 11:15:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
In-Reply-To: <b6732421cbe79d90b33b862a7a5dfc93e264597d.camel@aegee.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/mPl0oOhaiIohq41TVYwLIHzxo1M>
Subject: Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 5524: URLFETCH=BINARY vs URLAUTH=BINARY
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:15:20 -0000
Hi Дилян, On 22/05/2020 17:09, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > Hello, > > please comment on the following proposed erratum to RFC 5524 within a > month: > > Type EDITORIAL (not TECHNICAL) Agreed. > Current Text: > > 6. IANA Considerations > > This document defines the URLFETCH=BINARY IMAP capability. IANA has > added it to the registry accordingly. > > New Text: > > This document defines the URLAUTH=BINARY IMAP capability. IANA is > asked to replace URLFETCH=BINARY with URLAUTH=BINARY in the IMAP > registry. > > Motivation: > This document talks about URLAUTH=BINARY. Mentioning URLFETCH=BINARY > in the IANA section was not intended. I think this is fine. IANA wouldn't make the change just because an erratum was submitted, so they need to be notified separately. I think your friendly ART Area Director Barry Leiba can take care of this. He might suggest some edits to the above. Best Regards, Alexey > 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, >> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> 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 >>>> imapext@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> imapext mailing list >> imapext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
- [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 5524: … Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 55… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 55… Dave Cridland
- Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 55… Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 55… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 55… Дилян Палаузов
- Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 55… Dave Cridland
- Re: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 55… Alexey Melnikov