Re: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5581)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

(Sorry for the noise: one further comment.)
When it's marked "Verified", a comment should be added that it *is* OK
to support special-use without extended list, as specified in the
first paragraph of Section 2, but that the example in 5.2 says it's an
example of use with extended list, so the example is wrong.

Thanks,
Barry

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:28 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Ah, wait, I see.  The example in Section 5.2 says that it's an example
> of use of extended LIST, but the server doesn't advertise extended
> LIST... that's the problem.  Yes, that's an error in Section 5.2, and
> this report should be marked "Verified".
>
> Barry
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:25 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I believe that Section 2 makes it clear that it works both ways: the
> > first paragraph says how special-use behave with non-extended LIST,
> > and the second paragraph says what it does with extended LIST.
> >
> > Errata reporter, when you re-read those two paragraphs do you still
> > think it's unclear?
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:00 AM RFC Errata System
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6154,
> > > "IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes".
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > You may review the report below and at:
> > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5581
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > Type: Technical
> > > Reported by: Not clear whether SPECIAL-USE implies LIST-EXTENDED <[e-mail]>
> > >
> > > Section: 5.2
> > >
> > > Original Text
> > > -------------
> > >
> > >      C: t1 CAPABILITY
> > >      S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 SPECIAL-USE
> > >      S: t1 OK done
> > >
> > > Corrected Text
> > > --------------
> > >
> > >      C: t1 CAPABILITY
> > >      S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 SPECIAL-USE LIST-EXTENDED
> > >      S: t1 OK done
> > >
> > > Notes
> > > -----
> > > Is it okay for a server to support SPECIAL-USE without supporting LIST-EXTENDED? The example seems to imply this, but it's not clear from the RFC text. Section 2 starts with: "For the extended list command [RFC5258]", but doesn't say the server MUST support LIST-EXTENDED.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC6154 (draft-ietf-morg-list-specialuse-06)
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > Title               : IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes
> > > Publication Date    : March 2011
> > > Author(s)           : B. Leiba, J. Nicolson
> > > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > > Source              : Message Organization
> > > Area                : Applications
> > > Stream              : IETF
> > > Verifying Party     : IESG