[Jmap] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8620 (6603)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 09 June 2021 03:42 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C153A10E3 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 20:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8TcI7-P-m70N for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC6803A10BA for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 20:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id CF4E9F4073B; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 20:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: neilj@fastmailteam.com, chris.newman@oracle.com, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, brong@fastmailteam.com, fenton@bluepopcorn.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: neilj@fastmailteam.com, jmap@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210609034128.CF4E9F4073B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:41:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/qJwK4vQpwFm9C6yi0lYtYbNdU2Y>
Subject: [Jmap] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8620 (6603)
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 03:42:14 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8620, "The JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6603 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmailteam.com> Section: 5.6 Original Text ------------- In the "upToId" request argument definition: If the sort and filter are both only on immutable properties, this allows the server to omit changes after this point in the results, which can significantly increase efficiency. If they are not immutable, this argument is ignored. In the "removed" response argument definition: If the sort and filter are both only on immutable properties and an "upToId" is supplied and exists in the results, any ids that were removed but have a higher index than "upToId" SHOULD be omitted. In the "added" response argument definition: If the sort and filter are both only on immutable properties and an "upToId" is supplied and exists in the results, any ids that were added but have a higher index than "upToId" SHOULD be omitted. Corrected Text -------------- In the upToId argument definition: The server may be able to omit added or removed items that are after the client's last cached id, making the update more efficient. In the "removed" response argument definition: If an "upToId" is supplied and existed in the old results, any ids that were removed but had a higher index than "upToId" in those results SHOULD be omitted. If the server cannot calculate this, the "upToId" MUST be ignored. In the "added" response argument definition: If an "upToId" is supplied and exists in the new results, any ids that were added but have a higher index than "upToId" SHOULD be omitted. Notes ----- This errata fixes two issues with the upToId definition: 1. Using upToId doesn't require immutable properties in some server implementations; this is an implementation detail. The important thing is it's an optional optimisation that the server can ignore if it does not have the data to calculate it. The text has been updated to reflect this. 2. Clarify that for the "removed" argument, the indexes we are comparing for the upToId optimisation are of the ids in the *old* results. The original text is unclear and seems to imply you might compare with the index of the id in the new results, which will give an incorrect result. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC8620 (draft-ietf-jmap-core-17) -------------------------------------- Title : The JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) Publication Date : July 2019 Author(s) : N. Jenkins, C. Newman Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : JSON Mail Access Protocol Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Jmap] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8620 (6603) RFC Errata System