Re: [Imap-protocol] Re: Missing UIDNEXT during mailbox synchronization

>> Looks like that part of 3501 was not updated from 2060, then -- the
>> UIDNEXT is listed as REQUIRED in the description of the SELECT command, as
>> Bron pointed out.
>
> I reported this as an errata to RFC 3501, with the recommendation that the
> "assumption" sentence from the UIDNEXT text be removed in order to eliminate
> the ambiguity between this text (which implies that the UIDNEXT response may
> be optional) and the REQUIRED requirement located in Sections 6.3.1 & 6.3.2.

Um...

But this erratum is wrong.  You jumped to premature conclusions.

Look at the paragraph above the responses in Section 6.3.1.  It says this:

      The SELECT command selects a mailbox so that messages in the
      mailbox can be accessed.  Before returning an OK to the client,
      the server MUST send the following untagged data to the client.
      Note that earlier versions of this protocol only required the
      FLAGS, EXISTS, and RECENT untagged data; consequently, client
      implementations SHOULD implement default behavior for missing data
      as discussed with the individual item.

The text that you're suggesting removing is there very purposefully,
and should NOT be removed.  I intend to mark the erratum as
"Rejected", but I'll give us some time to discuss it further first.

Barry, Applications AD
_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol