[lemonade] [Errata Rejected] RFC4978 (4478)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 19 September 2015 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5241B3001; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 6ZzQ_U5_5Uo7; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F5A1B2FF6; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id AEF7B18046A; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: poima.fuimaono@gmail.com, arnt@oryx.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20150919223036.AEF7B18046A@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:30:36 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lemonade/07BgCZvR6zKLHRrKEl78-FevfkI>
Cc: lemonade@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [lemonade] [Errata Rejected] RFC4978 (4478)
X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments <lemonade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lemonade/>
List-Post: <mailto:lemonade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 22:31:20 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC4978,
"The IMAP COMPRESS Extension".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4978&eid=4478

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: poima fuimaono <poima.fuimaono@gmail.com>
Date Reported: 2015-09-19
Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG)

Section: IMAP protoco

Original Text
-------------
RFC 4978 vs. RFC 5032 -- mismatch in UPDATES clauses

Within two weeks, two RFCs have been published specifying amendments
to the IMAP protocol:

  o  RFC 4978  -- COMPRESS

  o  RFC 5032  -- WITHIN Search

Both IMAP extensions are similarly structured and arguably RFC 4978
modifies IMAP behaviour specified in RFC 3501 (and other IMAP
extension specifications: IMAP TLS and SASL) to a much greater extent
than RFC 5032 does.

Nevertheless and surprisingly, only RFC 5032 has the line,
  Updates: 3501
in its document header and hence in its RFC index metadata.

This is apparently inconsistent.

An update to the RFC metadata incoporating the relation
     "RFC 4978 updates RFC 3501"
would be welcome as well.
Report New Errata

Corrected Text
--------------
TBD following modifications

Notes
-----
Both IMAP extensions are similarly structured and arguably RFC 4978
modifies IMAP behaviour specified in RFC 3501 (and other IMAP
extension specifications: IMAP TLS and SASL) to a much greater extent
than RFC 5032 does.

Nevertheless and surprisingly, only RFC 5032 has the line,
  Updates: 3501
in its document header and hence in its RFC index metadata.

This is apparently inconsistent.

An update to the RFC metadata incoporating the relation
     "RFC 4978 updates RFC 3501"
would be welcome as well.
Report New Errata
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
First, errata isn't meant to be used for RFC metadata.

Second, the reason that RFC 5032 "updates" 3501 is that the grammar for the IMAP SEARCH command isn't set up to be extensible, so adding search terms is an update to the base.  In contrast, adding IMAP commands generally isn't.

Except that, yes, we have been inconsistent with that over time.

--------------------------------------
RFC4978 (draft-ietf-lemonade-compress-08)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The IMAP COMPRESS Extension
Publication Date    : August 2007
Author(s)           : A. Gulbrandsen
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service environments
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG