Re: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5265)

Arnt Gulbrandsen <> Mon, 26 February 2018 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E84C12D779 for <>; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 04:10:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VQtx-jttc2fv for <>; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 04:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFA47124234 for <>; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 04:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543ACFA0035; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:10:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1519647033; bh=PHUL28t5pFJ/AsUyw0LHgsKNWBeIfavWd3L4q2RNz40=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=r4+dZh+1YsoCmTaHGmrDboio8i2AQo6XOJlUgZy2on+hTY7i7QFN3Knka25EP+IGR +W9NlvvgI5jxb2JK3GSpP9IF5NgZGk9Xxc2PcNA6LayCHFpso9ngMDqOy64mnjPzk/ bypVa9ozHj/Qutb1M2VlxKhqLl+8j7iHapNK9Iag=
Received: from by (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1519647032-29839-31493/11/2; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:10:32 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:10:31 +0000
User-Agent: Trojita/v0.5-9-g8961725; Qt/4.8.6; X11; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 1.0 (jessie)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5265)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Organization <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:10:38 -0000

Barry Leiba writes:
> That said, while this doesn't represent an error or omission in the
> spec, it certainly wouldn't have hurt to have been explicit about
> this.  So I also suggest that any work the Extra working group does
> related to IMAP takes an extra sentence here or there to be clear that
> the items it defines are case-insensitive, and that the case shown in
> the text is merely an editorial choice (perhaps just by explicitly
> saying "See the ABNF notes at the beginning of RFC 3501 Section 9.").

The problem here is that IMAP documents suffer from a moderate case of "do 
as I say, not as I do" syndrome. They say to treat flag names, keywords etc 
case insensitively, but the document authors treat those things case 
sensitively in the document.

There's a perfectly clear rule on page 81, and most of the 107 other pages 
are written as if the opposite rule were in force. That's not kind to the