Re: client support for RFC 3516 (BINARY)?

On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:44 AM, Jan Kundrát <[email protected]> wrote:

> In case of Trojita, we don't request a BINARY on a non-leaf part because I don't think doing that should be "legal". As I originally said in that e-mail thread, this is probably worth an errata update to the RFC, IMHO.

Yes, 3516 was supposed to restrict binary fetches to terminal MIME parts.  I was sure the final version of the draft had that text, and it still baffles me how it got through last call without me noticing, but there you go.

I think the changes to add that restriction might be a bit too substantive for an errata.  (Barry, are you lurking  out there?)  Also, others have complained about parts of the document that are ambiguous or just not clear, so maybe it's time for an update.  

--lyndon

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=mmIj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----