IMAP Response Codes
draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2009-03-25
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-03-25
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-03-25
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-03-24
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-03-24
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2009-03-23
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-03-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-03-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-03-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-03-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2009-03-21
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2009-03-21
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2009-03-13
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-03-12 |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Amy Vezza |
2009-03-12
|
07 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by IESG Secretary |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2009-03-12
|
07 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by IESG Secretary |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] Arnt's March 12 email (8:01 AM EDT) suggests that collisions with proprietary response codes are a legitimate concern: In that case, don't … [Ballot discuss] Arnt's March 12 email (8:01 AM EDT) suggests that collisions with proprietary response codes are a legitimate concern: In that case, don't we also need to register SCAN and such things, which are often seen in deployed servers, but for which there will never be an RFC? Alexey's response indicated that such response codes are "rare". I assume that means there are few of them, rather than "rarely seen" since that contradicts Arnt's statement. The IANA rules should allow the designated expert the flexibility to address this for legacy cases, but I don't think the proposed text supports this option. (I support requiring RFCs for any future assignments.) |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07. The draft looks good, but I have one question: Should the list in Section 6 contain NOTSAVED (RFC … [Ballot discuss] I have reviewed draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07. The draft looks good, but I have one question: Should the list in Section 6 contain NOTSAVED (RFC 5182), ANNOTATIONS (RFC 5257), TEMPFAIL (RFC 5259), MAXCONVERTMESSAGES (RFC 5259), MAXCONVERTPARTS (RFC 5259), NOUPDATE (RFC 5267), NOTIFICATIONOVERFLOW (RFC 5465), BADEVENT (RFC 5465), and UNDEFINED-FILTER (RFC 5466)? And perhaps also NEWNAME (RFC 2060), possibly marked as "obsolete"? (This was a result of simple "grep", so perhaps there are still more RFCs that have more response codes...) |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-03-12
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings |
2009-03-11
|
07 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Chris Newman |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Chris Newman | Ballot has been issued by Chris Newman |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] I think the IANA instructions are too vague. I'd rather see them just tell IANA what to do with drafts. I also want … [Ballot discuss] I think the IANA instructions are too vague. I'd rather see them just tell IANA what to do with drafts. I also want to check that it was the intention was that independent stream RFC that have never even been sent to the mailing list were could update the registry. |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-03-11
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-03-10
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-03-10
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-03-05
|
07 | Chris Newman | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Chris Newman |
2009-03-05
|
07 | Chris Newman | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-03-12 by Chris Newman |
2009-03-04
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-02-23
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call questions/comments: QUESTION: If a name that IANA reserves for an I-D is requested by another document, how would this conflict be resolved? … IANA Last Call questions/comments: QUESTION: If a name that IANA reserves for an I-D is requested by another document, how would this conflict be resolved? Upon approval of this document, IANA will create the following registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Registry Name: IMAP Response Codes Registration Procedures: RFC Required. IANA may add placeholders for internet-drafts at its discretion. Initial contents of this registry will be: Response Code Reference ------------- --------- REFERRAL RFC 2221 ALERT RFC 3501 BADCHARSET RFC 3501 PARSE RFC 3501 PERMANENTFLAGS RFC 3501 READ-ONLY RFC 3501 READ-WRITE RFC 3501 TRYCREATE RFC 3501 UIDNEXT RFC 3501 UIDVALIDITY RFC 3501 UNSEEN RFC 3501 UNKNOWN-CTE RFC 3516 UIDNOTSTICKY RFC 4315 APPENDUID RFC 4315 COPYUID RFC 4315 URLMECH RFC 4467 TOOBIG RFC 4469 BADURL RFC 4469 HIGHESTMODSEQ RFC 4551 NOMODSEQ RFC 4551 MODIFIED RFC 4551 COMPRESSIONACTIVE RFC 4978 CLOSED RFC 5162 BADCOMPARATOR RFC 5255 ANNOTATE RFC 5257 METADATA RFC (draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-16.txt) UNAVAILABLE [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] AUTHENTICATIONFAILED [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] AUTHORIZATIONFAILED [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] EXPIRED [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] PRIVACYREQUIRED [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] CONTACTADMIN [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] NOPERM [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] INUSE [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] EXPUNGEISSUED [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] CORRUPTION [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] SERVERBUG [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] CLIENTBUG [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] CANNOT [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] LIMIT [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] OVERQUOTA [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] ALREADYEXISTS [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] NONEXISTENT [RFC-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07] We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
2009-02-19
|
07 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Carl Wallace. |
2009-02-06
|
07 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2009-02-06
|
07 | Sam Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2009-02-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2009-02-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2009-02-04
|
07 | Chris Newman | Last Call was requested by Chris Newman |
2009-02-04
|
07 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Chris Newman |
2009-02-04
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-02-04
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-02-04
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-01-27
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Note]: 'Alexey Melnikov is document shepherd' added by Chris Newman |
2009-01-27
|
07 | Chris Newman | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (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 is an individual submission. However the document was extensively reviewed by members of (now concluded) IMAPEXT WG. So there are no concerns about the depth of the reviews. (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? There is solid consensus behind the 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 2.10.03 was used to verify the document, which returned no warnings. (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. (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 creates a new registry for IMAP response codes. (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 in the document verifies with Bill'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. This document collects and documents a variety of machine-readable IMAP response codes, for better interoperation and error reporting. 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 not a WG document. Nothing worth reporting. 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 was extensively reviewed by both IMAP client and server implementors. There are already several implementations of this document. At least 10 people have reviewed the document. Majority of posted comments were addressed in the latest revision. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd for this document. |
2009-01-27
|
07 | Chris Newman | Draft Added by Chris Newman in state Publication Requested |
2008-12-15
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07.txt |
2008-12-04
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-06.txt |
2008-12-04
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-05.txt |
2008-10-27
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-04.txt |
2008-10-22
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-03.txt |
2008-04-16
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-02.txt |
2008-02-15
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-01.txt |
2008-02-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-00.txt |