From nobody Fri Dec 21 08:00:21 2018 Return-Path: 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 04D15130E0E for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 6uVhCPq5k-_C for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 199F3130DFD for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 06A80B81C58; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:18 -0800 (PST) To: barryleiba@computer.org, nicolson@google.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, rg+ietf@qualcomm.com, barryleiba@computer.org, tss@iki.fi X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: contact@emersion.fr, morg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20181221160018.06A80B81C58@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:18 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5581) X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 16:00:21 -0000 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 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 From nobody Fri Dec 21 08:25:57 2018 Return-Path: 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 D8F93130E35 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:25:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 AC8B5A_R0Id5 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-f179.google.com (mail-it1-f179.google.com [209.85.166.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42C1C130E34 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-f179.google.com with SMTP id i145so7599924ita.4 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:25:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gTurZHHLoLvwCfCFB0d7GtTBoRNz45xqG5r2Dlkdhw0=; b=qaXxSC6KxwbtW2ec1mckZhilm1niph/0gYrx9qVXxgcRrn0NaJk1FfDwsnzAw2QX9L EEEcCQFR/+RFfptLzn2H/gPcFk4mss/dYj3QD4CNgeivGaEN8J+t4NwFfHq2gWZmZ6PU TIvIbrfnrAlNCpoKZznIBIAWy6xhfwAxeQGfVYKziiM2mYBdJ3hfWINvaTfSCix0KLjv MSPogMgrNkZ+rgOZS5jLZEr2rA3putPbD+sTPuq6U2lFSVoaLlrJV8+yvrqJpPF50SW6 yHkxWe+GnIebEZubVigU8d9RBU3aHKrb+dSviadZNCtb2Jry4Zbo/ubogcgMg0M0OAyM dzYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaA7pByc+/KwB82FHD9gh0r0yztAFc7n09XhN3JB2WmpMFecQH7 yE5J608wt3mKS8qZjeip7AK+pQul+siA1el0zTU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/W46AtDw0WtkKedC2xZrO4t2uew+71QobKDfvabkZc79DBXbquhhjaJucOe7Ppo/9w70bMUhuTCFqbOAZ+n3PQ= X-Received: by 2002:a24:a04:: with SMTP id 4mr2364625itw.122.1545409547211; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:25:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181221160018.06A80B81C58@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20181221160018.06A80B81C58@rfc-editor.org> From: Barry Leiba Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:25:36 -0500 Message-ID: To: RFC Errata System Cc: =?UTF-8?B?SmFtaWUgTmljb2xzb24gKOWAquW/l+aYjik=?= , Ben Campbell , Alexey Melnikov , Adam Roach , Timo Sirainen , contact@emersion.fr, morg , Randall Gellens Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5581) X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 16:25:52 -0000 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 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 > > 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-EX= TENDED? The example seems to imply this, but it's not clear from the RFC te= xt. Section 2 starts with: "For the extended list command [RFC5258]", but d= oesn'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 From nobody Fri Dec 21 08:28:22 2018 Return-Path: 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 574A5130E3C for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:28:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 zH4DPimjoEZ2 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:28:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-f180.google.com (mail-it1-f180.google.com [209.85.166.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A1C130E33 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:28:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-f180.google.com with SMTP id i145so7612772ita.4 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:28:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3Qnvpl+S1lLpWJiHcKAsLmbrL4Z6oIb3FACLHNeHybw=; b=KVrYMNf1XPhvpOIM/YIkIv0r43XT7PxUPpMejodnE0tg+L6dhrYKVW3/vOuRJGa9AZ XGNpYpnoNJQ/fd9wi0XVC+cUlomMqUvvimRPai0ImPqhOdVjWeFziJhIcDSfkcdk4cr0 wtTM1QDfCjRV2UQL8KFiauXEieaMPTpb3eWinp7hTgnJ/XoIeiW4gtgHcn02Ny2nTh7W mdn/KXsO2OFzmZMpyLd1oQhVjL/fQT7o4JXqbJkQ6epGZ91jsfezpblQFVDt+UdigSTf a/WnSpJ/FJofMO8T5IYncOmg1CPqwKFVg09r67bNe0vqNj684RTzG1FeVwOn4vktZDIX d2oQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbDGLgRb1Gco0+WbJeXM+FMyAdgUN+3OBV+IYpGFl45maajQGla guyVNCj+uv75y8p7kjPEZvt4Tv22V3p6vFOKNlo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WD/riuMwsgzT/eQ7YxRRX5A01QnshIjnfXO8BJ+ROvCGR+LBBDaEzeu+tsG7xcX8A10afmc+1rTUSPz1p/AxA= X-Received: by 2002:a24:dd8d:: with SMTP id t135mr2263265itf.84.1545409697225; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:28:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181221160018.06A80B81C58@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: From: Barry Leiba Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:28:06 -0500 Message-ID: To: RFC Errata System Cc: =?UTF-8?B?SmFtaWUgTmljb2xzb24gKOWAquW/l+aYjik=?= , Ben Campbell , Alexey Melnikov , Adam Roach , Timo Sirainen , contact@emersion.fr, morg , Randall Gellens Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5581) X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 16:28:20 -0000 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 wrot= e: > > 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 > 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 > > > > 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 From nobody Fri Dec 21 08:30:37 2018 Return-Path: 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 3C406130E3C for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:30:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 SFdNBnwiJ6Wq for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:30:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-f182.google.com (mail-it1-f182.google.com [209.85.166.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC19130E33 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:30:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-f182.google.com with SMTP id m62so7619666ith.5 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:30:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y21tTsK2cGymCiHjmgoQ+xUU8hd809fDHeOFR+wCDEA=; b=INpl+oB0qo7y/WKsg8WKhTInz43UCntIxc6+kDfd6tFv0Ps+JHdQ/wmd1KEJrTt6yW omB6kPPR9jF+W33In+159pSjxZSyimgc9lY737WZMtTQU0aRvGT5n/XxALLqWDgCbpuA 1eaaNSYJMUAgNABbFdxe+F7wMWRQ43VJIj3U6hcD5rU6X6EhD2g9tG2NY3rmSWLaeFBo RbxslO/KqNsbzFTW8In6HTW7oGcKJUSLlCyuRTYt4Fd1Fr6deUDS9e0O+1UHho19k1rw C79kE+ipxx4hi7kPYjiNBh2PlgeA6BggWhLr+iauLkkUoWkto/XghsESgw8u9b3pWdtk zRDA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZLm+Qiziu9iB6unQkn3KBjzA/mi229X57LgjXkWiWOBzqXPyBl ni2zpXeqs+KSRf6/4CE/pICND0HVrA1XaLOvlTI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XdDU5xaG+F071naqbskIvm3c721XWfJQdlLd2mVamVSNsKn1FJ+aQsh/tFUXiWUGyst2kIS4R5xsJt/mNvOy8= X-Received: by 2002:a24:a04:: with SMTP id 4mr2377208itw.122.1545409833325; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:30:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181221160018.06A80B81C58@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: From: Barry Leiba Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:30:22 -0500 Message-ID: To: RFC Errata System Cc: =?UTF-8?B?SmFtaWUgTmljb2xzb24gKOWAquW/l+aYjik=?= , Ben Campbell , Alexey Melnikov , Adam Roach , Timo Sirainen , contact@emersion.fr, morg , Randall Gellens Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [MORG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6154 (5581) X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 16:30:36 -0000 (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 wrot= e: > > 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 wr= ote: > > > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > 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 LIS= T-EXTENDED? The example seems to imply this, but it's not clear from the RF= C text. Section 2 starts with: "For the extended list command [RFC5258]", b= ut 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