IMAP Response Codes
draft-gulbrandsen-imap-response-codes-07

[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.)

[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...)

[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.

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.

  (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.