Subject: [imapext] IMAP Capability Registry and RFC 5524: URLFETCH=BINARY vs URLAUTH=BINARY

From: Дилян Палаузов <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 14:55:49 +0000

Hello,

The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) Capabilities Registry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-capabilities/imap-capabilities.xhtml
says:

URLFETCH=BINARY 	[RFC5524]

and RFC 5524, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5524 says:

3.  Extended URLFETCH

   This extension is available in any IMAP server implementation that
   includes URLAUTH=BINARY within its capability string.

5. Formal Syntax

   capability       =/ "URLAUTH=BINARY"

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines the URLFETCH=BINARY IMAP capability.  IANA has
   added it to the registry accordingly.

My reading is, that the URLAUTH=BINARY and URLFETCH=BINARY capabilities
mean the same.

Please comment within a month on the following proposal for erratum:

New text:

3.  Extended URLFETCH

   This extension is available in any IMAP server implementation that
   includes URLAUTH=BINARY or URLFETCH=BINARY within its capability
   string.

5.  Formal Syntax

 capability       =/ "URLAUTH=BINARY" / "URLFETCH=BINARY"

      ; Command parameters; see Section 3.1

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines the URLFETCH=BINARY and the URLAUTH=BINARY
IMAP capabilities.  Both capabilities mean the same. IANA has added 
URLFETCH=BINARY and will add URLAUTH=BINARY to the registry 
accordingly.

I do not insist to do the wording, anybody can take this over.

If there is knowledge, that all implementations have consolidated on a
single capability wording, then the erratum can get smaller.

Greetings
  Дилян

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 16:48:58 +0100

Hi Дилян,

> My reading is, that the URLAUTH=BINARY and URLFETCH=BINARY capabilities
I think one of these is a typo. I suspect "URLFETCH=BINARY" should be 
"URLAUTH=BINARY", because "URLAUTH" is already registered as a 
Capability. Dave?
> URLFETCH=BINARY and will add URLAUTH=BINARY to the registry

If it is a typo, I would edit your suggestion to recommend one or 
another, not both.

Best Regards,

Alexey

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

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 08:15:20 +0100

Oh.

It looks like I made a mistake in the IANA section, that was subtle enough
never to be noticed by any of the reviewers or the editors, or indeed IANA.
That was clever of me, wasn't it?

Given that the specification refers only to URLAUTH in defining the
behaviour of the server, I think the IANA section is solely at fault, such
means I have managed to get an errata into the registry.

Do I get a prize? Or a lifetime ban from writing any more RFCs?

Dave.

On Tue, 19 May 2020, 16:49 Alexey Melnikov, <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) Capabilities Registry athttps://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-capabilities/imap-capabilities.xhtml
> says:
>
> I think one of these is a typo. I suspect "URLFETCH=BINARY" should be "URLAUTH=BINARY",
> because "URLAUTH" is already registered as a Capability. Dave?
>
>
> If it is a typo, I would edit your suggestion to recommend one or another,
> not both.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alexey
>
> imapext mailing [email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
>
>

---

From: Дилян Палаузов <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 08:04:36 +0000

Hello,

how shall the IANA IMAP Capabilities registry look like

-- SO --

URLAUTH=BINARY 	[RFC5524]

-- OR SO --

URLAUTH=BINARY 	[RFC5524]
URLFETCH=BINARY INVALID - RFC 5524 has introduced the URLAUTH=BINARY
capability, but accidentially inserted URLFETCH=BINARY in the IANA
registry.

Regards
  Дилян

On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 08:15 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Oh.
> It looks like I made a mistake in the IANA section, that was subtle
> enough never to be noticed by any of the reviewers or the editors, or
> indeed IANA. That was clever of me, wasn't it?
> 
> behaviour of the server, I think the IANA section is solely at fault,
> such means I have managed to get an errata into the registry.
> 
> On Tue, 19 May 2020, 16:49 Alexey Melnikov,
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >  
> >  Hi Дилян,
> >  I think one of these is a typo. I suspect "URLFETCH=BINARY" should
> > be "URLAUTH=BINARY", because "URLAUTH" is already registered as a
> > Capability. Dave? 
> > >

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 10:05:14 +0100

> capability, but accidentially inserted URLFETCH=BINARY in the IANA
I suggest the former and add a note about invalid capability when you 
submit an erratum: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php#reportnew

---

From: Дилян Палаузов <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:09:00 +0000

Hello,

please comment on the following proposed erratum to RFC 5524 within a
month:

Type EDITORIAL (not TECHNICAL)

Current Text:

6.  IANA Considerations

New Text:

   This document defines the URLAUTH=BINARY IMAP capability.  IANA is
   asked to replace URLFETCH=BINARY with URLAUTH=BINARY in the IMAP 
   registry.

Motivation:
  This document talks about URLAUTH=BINARY.  Mentioning URLFETCH=BINARY
  in the IANA section was not intended.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 22:08:23 +0100

>   in the IANA section was not intended.
Looks exactly right, thanks.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 11:15:11 +0100

Hi Дилян,

> Type EDITORIAL (not TECHNICAL)
Agreed.
>    in the IANA section was not intended.

I think this is fine. IANA wouldn't make the change just because an 
erratum was submitted, so they need to be notified separately.

I think your friendly ART Area Director Barry Leiba can take care of 
this. He might suggest some edits to the above.

Best Regards,

Alexey