Re: [MORG] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5431)

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

Fair enough! Is there a better way to say "if you're implementing now,
please do this to get best interop"?

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, at 08:26, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > There exist clients which send a non-extended LIST command and will> > correctly display and interact with mailboxes usefully if their


> > special-uses are given in the response.


> >


> > Because of this, many servers are already replying with the
> > special-use> > attributes, and there are no known reports of clients being
> > broken by> > that behaviour.  Because of this, the MAY should be raised to a
> > SHOULD,> > and server implementations should default to turning this on.


> 


> That may (ahem) be true now, but the document says exactly what we
> intended it to say when it was written.> 


> Alexey, please mark this report REJECTED.


> 


> Barry


> 


> 


> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:51 PM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-
> editor.org> 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/eid5431
>> 
>>  --------------------------------------
>>  Type: Editorial
>>  Reported by: Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>
>> 
>>  Section: 2
>> 
>>  Original Text
>>  -------------
>>  An IMAP server that supports this extension MAY include any or
>>  all of>>  the following attributes in responses to the non-extended IMAP LIST>>  command.
>> 
>>  Corrected Text
>>  --------------
>>  An IMAP server that supports this extension SHOULD include any or
>>  all of>>  the following attributes in responses to the non-extended IMAP LIST>>  command.
>> 
>>  Notes
>>  -----
>>  There exist clients which send a non-extended LIST command and will
>>  correctly display and interact with mailboxes usefully if their special-
>>  uses are given in the response.>> 
>>  Because of this, many servers are already replying with the special-
>>  use attributes, and there are no known reports of clients being
>>  broken by that behaviour.  Because of this, the MAY should be raised
>>  to a SHOULD, and server implementations should default to turning
>>  this on.>> 
>>  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
> -- 
> Barry
> --
> Barry Leiba  ([e-mail])
> http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]