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

"Roy A. Gilmore" <rag@ragged-software.com> Mon, 26 February 2018 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rag@ragged-software.com>
X-Original-To: morg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: morg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC668129C51 for <morg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:19:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ragged-software.com
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 FvW_Ol-C2K46 for <morg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jax4mhob25.registeredsite.com (jax4mhob25.registeredsite.com [64.69.218.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01A70128C0A for <morg@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.205]) by jax4mhob25.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1Q5Ivq4029478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <morg@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:18:57 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 jax4mhob25.registeredsite.com w1Q5Ivq4029478
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ragged-software.com; s=default; t=1519622339; bh=8P2BjP9+kBr5CTI1bxml3H/rboh8oCWyj3scpmHmGAI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cHwNAnO/wNZwro3VbHnHeaMtUSj/KH3aN7nnebnMWYGBvbwfpzfE5Ga5dQrszMOdS 1jtVgWVOf58n0EQG+cNXSJ6aDGj8wnHc+yAthbkCrfKsJ+e5midmBKuhOgPWXyrg5P 5UMdiUQp4DuygHDmEDcAgpIEIx6ZiqKV4cbkyJy0=
Received: (qmail 31460 invoked by uid 0); 26 Feb 2018 05:18:57 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 108.254.82.121
X-Authenticated-UID: rag@ragged-software.com
Received: from unknown (HELO thor.internal.ragged-software.com) (rag@ragged-software.com@108.254.82.121) by 0 with ESMTPA; 26 Feb 2018 05:18:57 -0000
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?SmFtaWUgTmljb2xzb24gKOWAquW/l+aYjik=?= <nicolson@google.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>, Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>, morg <morg@ietf.org>
References: <20180225161655.11CA8B80C6A@rfc-editor.org> <CALaySJK7hM4JufHPOvrUH=8Gx0Eh3f1rWdG5i-XjDpwgu8LkUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Roy A. Gilmore" <rag@ragged-software.com>
Organization: RAGged Software
Message-ID: <d4d08123-c164-644e-bf18-79887ec18951@ragged-software.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:18:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJK7hM4JufHPOvrUH=8Gx0Eh3f1rWdG5i-XjDpwgu8LkUA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AA10C25EE3C8234BE7BFE0A4"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/morg/qnIYIYD3GaocAdD7kMZ2av1cm6c>
Subject: Re: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5265)
X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Organization <morg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/morg/>
List-Post: <mailto:morg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:19:06 -0000

Hi Barry,

Thank you for clarifying this behavior. Upon reflecting on your
rationale, I agree with your recommendation of "rejected", if for no
other reason than because I had not claimed that were actually any
errors or omissions in the specification, and I simply wanted
clarification of a specific behavior that was not addressed within the
specification itself (even though it *is* addressed in the referenced
RFC 3501). In hindsight, carefully re-reading both RFC 6154 Section 6,
specifically:

    mbx-list-oflag =/  use-attr
                     ; Extends "mbx-list-oflag" from IMAP base [RFC3501]

and RFC 3501 Section 9, would have answered my question. I wish I had
been more thorough in my research. In my defense, sometimes the answer
to a trivial question is buried under many layers of chained referenced
specifications, and RTFM takes days of wading through irrelevant
referenced specifications to find the single phrase that actually
defines a behavior.

Thank you again,

Roy A. Gilmore

--
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. (Robert A. Heinlein, Time
Enough for Love)

On 02/25/2018 12:03 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Roy, thanks for taking the time to make this report.
>
> As this is an IMAP extension, it inherits such aspects from IMAP, RFC
> 3501.  The beginning of RFC 3501 Section 9 says this:
>
>         Note: [ABNF] rules MUST be followed strictly; in
>         particular:
>
>         (1) Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters
>         are case-insensitive.  The use of upper or lower case
>         characters to define token strings is for editorial clarity
>         only.  Implementations MUST accept these strings in a
>         case-insensitive fashion.
>
> The notations here such as "\Archive" match the related non-extended
> notations in RFC 3501 such as "\Noselect", all done for the same
> editorial style and all subject to that note in RFC 3501.
>
> Alexey, I suggest marking this report as "rejected".
>
> 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.").
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, 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/eid5265
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Roy A. Gilmore <rag@ragged-software.com>;
>>
>> Section: GLOBAL
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> In RFC6154, the special-use attributes are consistently shown with initial capitals, but there doesn't appear to be any guidance whether the special-use attributes are case-sensitive, case-insensitive, or implementation defined. This could lead to interoperability issues.
>>
>> 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
>
>