MBOX-Line: From slusarz at curecanti.org  Sun Jan  6 21:34:02 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Michael M Slusarz <slusarz@curecanti.org>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:50 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: Missing UIDNEXT during mailbox synchronization
In-Reply-To: <f45e9e58-e469-4e86-b95e-f2c0d38c5766@flaska.net>
References: <db123879-1082-4911-b7ce-3a861d62217a@flaska.net>
	<20121228112725.Horde.cM7EjLQoqQDix9dQMs5KcA1@bigworm.curecanti.org>
	<f45e9e58-e469-4e86-b95e-f2c0d38c5766@flaska.net>
Message-ID: <20130106223402.Horde.ZSCj1mxY7M87XW6Ro4AX9A1@bigworm.curecanti.org>

Quoting Jan Kundr?t <jkt@flaska.net>:

> 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.

michael


