Re: [lemonade] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4469 (4046)

[Stephan Bosch <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

RFC Errata System schreef op 10-7-2014 19:23:
> Section: Appendix A
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>     S: A003 NO [BADURL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=113330;
>     section=1.5.9"] CATENATE append has failed, one message expunged
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>     S: A003 NO [BADURL /INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=113330;
>     section=1.5.9] CATENATE append has failed, one message expunged
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> Although this example technically follows the ABNF for url-resp-text in section 5 by treating the double-quotes as part of the content of the url-resp-text rule, it is incorrect because it does not follow the additional guidance in section 5 that states:
>
>     The astring in the definition of url and the url-resp-text in the
>     definition of badurl-response-code each contain an imapurl as defined
>     by [2].
>
> Reference [2] defines IMAP URLs. In that RFC, a string surrounded by double quotes is not a valid IMAP URL. Thus the example is incorrect and the double quotes should be removed so the example aligns with the normative formal syntax.

This problem is also somewhat relevant here:

http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/2014-January/002146.html

Even though CATENATE doesn't deal with absolute URLs, these could 
conceivably be returned in a BADURL response when the client uses those 
anyway.

In practice, compliant clients won't send these, but still.

Regards,

Stephan.