Search RFCs

RFC Editor

Found 2 records.

Status:Verified (1)

RFC 3798, "Message Disposition Notification", May 2004

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted byRFC 8098

Note: This RFC has been updated byRFC 5337, RFC 6533

Errata ID:692
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-10-20
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2010-11-12

Section Several says:

(2) disposition modifiers=========================  The disposition modifiers "warning", "superseded", "expired",  "mailbox-terminated" have not seen actual implementation. They have  been deleted from this document.Accordingly, the syntax production "disposition-type" in section 3.2.6.(on page 14) and section 7. (on mid-page 22) has been changed to read:    disposition-modifier = "error" / disposition-modifier-extensionNevertheless, one of these 'removed' modifiers disposition ismentioned in the text of RFC 3798:o  "warning" :   - section 3.2.7. , 3rd line of text on page 16

It should say:

<Remove any references to "warning">

Notes:

Alexey: The editors have this change in their editorial copy of -bis.

Status:Rejected (1)

RFC 3798, "Message Disposition Notification", May 2004

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted byRFC 8098

Note: This RFC has been updated byRFC 5337, RFC 6533

Errata ID:691
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2004-10-20
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2011-11-12

Appendix A

(1) disposition types=====================The dispositions "denied" and "failed" were removed from thedocument reflecting the lack of implementation or usage ...Now, the syntax production "disposition-type" in section 3.2.6. (onpage 14) and section 7. (on mid-page 22) has been changed to read:    disposition-type = "displayed" / "deleted"This means that the RFC 2298 disposition types "dispatched" and"processed" have been removed from the syntax definitions as well!Thus, either Appendix A lacks mentioning these removals  OR  theseitems should not have been removed from the syntax definitions.Nevertheless, all these disposition types removed from the syntax arementioned at many places throughout RFC 3798:o  "dispatched" :   - section 3.2.6. , final paragraph of the section on page 16   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18o  "processed" :   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18   - section 5. , 4th paragraph on page 18o  "denied" :   - section 2.1. , bottom of page 4   - section 2.1. , end of 3rd paragraph on page 5   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18   - section 6.2. , end of first paragraph on page 19o  "failed" :   - section 2.2. , middle of second-to-last paragraph on page 6   - section 2.2. , middle of second paragraph on page 7 (twice)   - section 2.2. , third paragraph on page 7 (twice)   - section 3.2.7. , in 2nd text line, on page 16                    (mis-spelled "failure" there)   - section 4. , third-to-last bullet on page 17   - section 4. , first bullet on page 18All these places in the text deal with the issue/sending/generationof MDNs with the named deprecated disposition types (it would beacceptable to talk about what to do with *received* such dispositiontypes for backwards compatibility with RFC 2298) !

It should say:

[not submitted]

Notes:

from pending
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Clearly this document is a mess. The solution is to publish an RFC that cleans up the mess (and verifies that there is indeed consensus to remove the "denied" and "failed" dispositions), not to handle this via the errata process.

Report New Errata