Contexts for IMAP4
draft-cridland-imap-context-05

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "IMAP4 Capabilities Registry" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities

Capability Name Reference
-------------------------- ------------------
ESORT [RFC-cridland-imap-context-03]
CONTEXT=SEARCH [RFC-cridland-imap-context-03]
CONTEXT=SORT [RFC-cridland-imap-context-03]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Alexey Melnikov  is the document shepherd for
this document. The document is ready for publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

This document was reviewed by Ken Murchison, Timo Sirainen, Zoltan
Ordogh, Peter Coates and Greg Vaudreuil. Timo, Zoltan and Peter have found some issues in early versions which were addressed in -03.
Arnt Gulbrandsen mentioned earlier that the approach taken by the
document will work.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the  document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this  document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

No specific concerns. No IPR disclosure was filed for this document.
Note that this document is based on some ideas from RFC 2244, which
was published in November 1997.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

This document is an individual submission, but it is a normative
dependency of the Lemonade Profile Bis document.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated  extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the  document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

IDnits 2.04.09 was used to verify the document. -03 has no nits.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents  that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative  references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes, references are properly split. There are no downward normative
references. There is one normative reference to an IMAPEXT WG draft,
which is in IESG review (draft-ietf-imapext-sort).

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

IANA considerations section exists and is clearly defined.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

ABNF from the document passes the Bill Fenner's ABNF parser.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

  The IMAP4rev1 protocol has powerful search facilities as part of the
  core protocol, but lacks the ability to create live, updated results
  which can be easily handled.  This memo provides such an extension,
  and shows how it can be used to provide a facility similar to virtual
  mailboxes.

  This document is targeted for Standards Track.

          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?

  This is an individual submission.

  This document is one of the two [somewhat] competing proposals. The
  other document is now expired draft-ietf-lemonade-vfolder-01.txt.
  After a long and painful debate on requirements this document was
  selected as the document that satisfies OMA MEM requirements
  and thus it was included in Lemonade Profile Bis.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive  issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media  Type
            review, on what date was the request posted?

  The document received at least 5 positive reviews. All issues raised
  so far were fixed. At least 2 server implementors and 1 client
  implementor are working on implementations. One more client implementor
  is thinking about implementing this extension.