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

Quoting Barry Leiba <[email protected]>:

>>> 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.

Sigh.  I *KNEW* that UIDNEXT was not required for some reason - I had  
just forgotten the logic & explanation.  For some reason I forgot that  
RFC 2060 is also IMAP4rev1, NOT IMAP4, so there are several backward  
compatibility concerns between the two documents.

> 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.

I'd still argue that labeling the PERMANENTFLAGS/UIDNEXT responses an  
unqualified REQUIRED in the SELECT/EXAMINE description is, at best,  
confusing - this thread being proof of this fact. (I will note the  
UNSEEN response has already been modified in an errata to handle a  
similar case where UNSEEN is REQUIRED... unless it isn't.)  However,  
this critique is more of an extremely tardy editorial comment rather  
than an errata.

> 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.

I don't think further discussion is necessary.  You are correct - it  
should be rejected.  Wishing there was an "unsubmit" button on the  
submission page...

Sorry for the noise,
michael

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