The IMAP METADATA Extension
draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-17

[Ballot discuss]
There are two issues I would like to discuss with respect to this document.

(1) I suspect the confusion is mine, but I am confused none the less by the example in
section 4.2.2, DEPTH GETMETADATA.  The remainder of the document uses five namespaces:
/public/comment, /private/comment, /public/admin (for servers),
/public/vendor/, and /private/vendor/

Section 4.2.2 uses the namespace /private/filters which does not appear anywhere else in
the document, and does not seem to be well defined for an IMAP METADATA Entry. 

(2) Section 7, Security considerations includes the following statement:

    Servers MUST ensure that /private annotations are only visible
    to the user that created them.

The implications of this statement are unclear (to me at least).

As noted in the Security Considerations of RFC 3501:

  IMAP4rev1 protocol transactions, including electronic mail data, are
  sent in the clear over the network unless protection from snooping is
  negotiated.  This can be accomplished either by the use of STARTTLS,
  negotiated privacy protection in the AUTHENTICATE command, or some
  other protection mechanism.

It might be worth noting that values stored in entries that have the "/private" prefix
are exposed in transit by the SETMETADATA or GETMETADATA transactions unless
privacy protection was negotiated by the user.  Is the server responsible for enforcing
such privacy protection, or is this a recommended practice for servers?  Or is server
compliant if it responds to a GETMETADATA command for a private annotation from
another user with a BAD response?

[Ballot discuss]
There are two issues I would like to discuss with respect to this document>

(1) I suspect the confusion is mine, but I am confused none the less by the example in
section 4.2.2, DEPTH GETMETADATA.  The remainder of the document uses five namespaces:
/public/comment, /private/comment, /public/admin (for servers),
/public/vendor/, and /private/vendor/

Section 4.2.2 uses the namespace /private/filters which does not appear anywhere else in
the document, and does not seem to be well defined for an IMAP METADATA Entry. 

(2) Section 7, Security considerations includes the following statement:

    Servers MUST ensure that /private annotations are only visible
    to the user that created them.

The implications of this statement are unclear (to me at least).

As noted in the Security Considerations of RFC 3501:

  IMAP4rev1 protocol transactions, including electronic mail data, are
  sent in the clear over the network unless protection from snooping is
  negotiated.  This can be accomplished either by the use of STARTTLS,
  negotiated privacy protection in the AUTHENTICATE command, or some
  other protection mechanism.

It might be worth noting that values stored in entries that have the "/private" prefix
are exposed in transit by the SETMETADATA or GETMETADATA transactions unless
privacy protection was negotiated by the user.  Is the server responsible for enforcing
such privacy protection, or is this a recommended practice for servers?  Or is server
compliant if it responds to a GETMETADATA command for a private annotation from
another user with a BAD response?

[Ballot comment]
I found calling shared metadata "public" slightly confusing -- it's
visible only if you have access to the mailbox contents.  Something
like "shared" and "per-user" might be less confusing.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 1 describes the "METADATA" and "METADATA-SERVER" capabilities,
but the ABNF in Section 5 lists a third one: "METADATA-UNSOLICITED".
Should this be added to Section 1 or removed from Section 5?

IANA Last Call comments:

Action #1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the registry
"IMAP METADATA Entry and Attribute Registrations" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration procedure: RFC publication (standards track or experimental)
Registrations MUST use the template in [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15] section 6.1


Action #2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
sub-registry "METADATA Server" in the "IMAP METADATA Entry
Registrations" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration procedure: RFC publication (standards track or experimental)
Registrations MUST use the template in [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15] section 6.1
Initial contents of this registry will be:

Name | Content-Type | Reference
----------------+---------------------------+-----------
/public/comment | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]
/public/admin | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]
/public/vendor | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]
/private/vendor | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]


Action #3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
sub-registry "METADATA Mailbox Entry" in the registry "IMAP
METADATA Entry Registrations" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration procedure: RFC publication (standards track or experimental)
Registrations MUST use the template in [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15] section 6.1
Initial contents of this registry will be:

Name | Content-Type | Reference
-----------------+---------------------------+-----------
/public/comment | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]
/private/comment | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]
/private/vendor | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]
/public/vendor | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15]

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

Waiting for feedback from shepherd to determine if we should restart IETF
last call or move forward to IESG.  The update is a major simplification
based on Dan Karp's last call comments.

IANA Last Call comments:

Action #1

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following
registry "IMAP METADATA Entry and Attribute Registrations" located
at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration procedure: RFC publication (standards track or
experimental)
Registrations MUST use the template in [RFC-daboo-imap-
annotatemore-12] section 6.1

Initial contents of this registry will be:
this registry contains only sub registries


Action #2

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following
sub-registry "METADATA Server" in registry "IMAP METADATA Entry
Registrations"
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration procedure: RFC publication (standards track or
experimental) except for registrations under /vendor
Registrations MUST use the template in [RFC-daboo-imap-
annotatemore-12] section 6.1
Initial contents of this registry will be:

Name | Content-Type | Reference
--------+---------------------------+-----------
comment | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12]
motd | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12]
admin | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12]


Action #3
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following
sub-registry "METADATA Mailbox Entry" in registry "IMAP
METADATA Entry Registrations"
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration procedure: RFC publication (standards track or
experimental) except for registrations under /vendor
Registrations MUST use the template in [RFC-daboo-imap-
annotatemore-12] section 6.1
Initial contents of this registry will be:

Name | Content-Type | Reference
--------+---------------------------+-----------
comment | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12]
motd | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12]
admin | text/plain; charset=utf-8 | [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12]


Action #4
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "IMAP LIST EXTENED registry" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-list-extended

LIST-EXTENDED option name: METADATA
LIST-EXTENDED option type: SELECTION
Implied return options(s): (none)
LIST-EXTENDED option description:
The "METADATA" selection option type is used to request
that the extended LIST command match mailboxes which have
an annotation with a specific entry and value. It can
also be used to test for the existence of a particular
annotation entry on a mailbox.

Published specification : [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12], Section 4.3.
Security considerations: [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12], Section 7.
Intended usage: COMMON
Person and email address to contact for further information:
IMAP Extensions
Owner/Change controller: iesg@ietf.org

LIST-EXTENDED option name: METADATA
LIST-EXTENDED option type: RETURN
LIST-EXTENDED option description: Causes the LIST command to
return the specified mailbox annotations.
Published specification : [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12], Section 4.3.
Security considerations: [RFC-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12], Section 7.
Intended usage: COMMON
Person and email address to contact for further information:
IMAP Extensions
Owner/Change controller: iesg@ietf.org


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions 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 several active and experienced IMAPEXT and
Lemonade WG members.
So there are no concerns about the depth of the reviews.

Also note that this document is a dependency for the Lemonade Profile
Bis document (draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis-XX.txt).

  (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.

  (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.

  (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 2.03.12 was used to verify the document. It reported no errors
and some warnings. A couple of warnings are caused by use of IMAP
response codes (which are enclosed in []), so they are not a problem.
The two reported possible downreferences are not downreferences.

  (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 are 4 normative references pointing to drafts. Two of them
(I-D.ietf-imapext-list-extensions and I-D.newman-i18n-comparator) are
already approved for publication as Proposed Standards, there other two
are pointing to 2 IMAPEXT WG documents which are being finalized by the
IMAPEXT WG.
One informative reference points to an IMAPEXT WG draft targeted for
Experimental. This document is in IESG evaluation now.

  (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. It
establishes several new registries and registers new protocol elements.
New registries don't require Expert Review.

  (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 Bill Fenner's ABNF validation tool.
All elements marked as "undefined" or "not used" were manually checked
against the documents defining them and no errors were found.

  (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 METADATA extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol
  permits clients and servers to maintain "annotations" or "meta data"
  on IMAP servers.  It is possible to have annotations on a per-mailbox
  basis or on the server as a whole.  For example, this would allow
  comments about the purpose of a particular mailbox to be "attached"
  to that mailbox, or a "message of the day" containing server status
  information to be made available to anyone logging in to the server.

        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 document is an individual submission.
It was informally last called in the IMAPEXT WG and was discussed in
several WG meetings.

There was a proposal to add multivalued attributes, but it was not
accepted due to existence of a work around using subordinate entries.
This area might need further feedback from client implementors.

        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?

There are already 2 server implementations of earlier versions of this
document. At least one client and one server
vendor are interested in implementing the specification.

        Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is  the
            Responsible Area Director?

Alexey Melnikov  is the document shepherd for
this document.
Chris Newman is the responsible Area Director.

Review comment from Lemonade WG co-chair:

From: Eric Burger
Subject: Annotatemore
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:42:45 +0100

Chris: we think, in our expert opinion, it is ready.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-11.txt