Skip to main content

IMAP Support for UTF-8
draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
09 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2009-12-07
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-12-07
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-12-07
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-11-30
09 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-11-30
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-11-30
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-11-30
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-11-30
09 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2009-11-30
09 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-11-29
09 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2009-11-29
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-11-29
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-09.txt
2009-10-25
09 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Alexey Melnikov
2009-09-11
09 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10
2009-09-10
09 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-09-10
09 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-09-10
09 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-10
09 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-09-10
09 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Nit at the level of an observation:
Would be bice if the first section in the document was the Introduction, and if the …
[Ballot comment]
Nit at the level of an observation:
Would be bice if the first section in the document was the Introduction, and if the Introduction was a little less terse.
2009-09-10
09 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-10
09 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-10
09 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Nit at the level of an observation:
Would be bice if the first seciton in the document was the Introduction, and if the …
[Ballot comment]
Nit at the level of an observation:
Would be bice if the first seciton in the document was the Introduction, and if the Introduction was a little less terse.
2009-09-10
09 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-09-10
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
David Black suggested in GenArt review:

While not strictly a security consideration, it would be useful for
section 11 to point out the …
[Ballot comment]
David Black suggested in GenArt review:

While not strictly a security consideration, it would be useful for
section 11 to point out the potential for user confusion caused by
SEARCH command match strings that have different UTF-8 representations
but display identically or similarly (strings that look like they
should match don't).


Barry Leiba suggested:

  The UTF8=ONLY capability implies the UTF8 base capability, the
  UTF8=ALL capability and the UTF8=APPEND capability.  A server which
  advertises UTF8=ONLY need not advertise the three implicit
  capabilities.

Oy.  This makes parsing the capability string complicated, and should
be earlier in the document.  It'd be good to make this clear at the
beginning, when the UTF8 capability is first mentioned.
2009-09-10
09 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-09-09
09 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Most of the comments from the Gen-ART Review by David Black on
  31-Aug-2009 have been addressed.  However the WG is still discussing …
[Ballot discuss]
Most of the comments from the Gen-ART Review by David Black on
  31-Aug-2009 have been addressed.  However the WG is still discussing
  one:

    Section 2 ought to introduce what's being added to the protocol.
    Adaptations of the first two sentences in Section 10 (IANA
    Considerations) would suffice.
2009-09-09
09 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-09-09
09 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-09-09
09 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-09-09
09 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-09-09
09 Alexey Melnikov
The date of this writeup is September 6, 2009.
This form version is dated September 17, 2008.

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for …
The date of this writeup is September 6, 2009.
This form version is dated September 17, 2008.

  (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?

Harald Alvestand
Yes

  (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? 

The discussion during and after WG Last Call indicates a
depth of review that is completely adequate for this level.

  (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. The principal need here was for IMAP expertise, and that
was adequately represented in the WG.

  (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 issues.

  (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? 

The WG's IMAP expertise understands this specification and
agrees with it. The rest of the WG supports its publication.

  (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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        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?

Yes.

  (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].

References are split.
All normative references are published as RFCs; one reference
to an obsoleted document is to a feature that was removed
when going to Draft Standard. This reference is intentional.
Downrefs are not a problem for Experimental.

  (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 [RFC5226]. 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?

The document's IANA considerations fully describes the
actions required of IANA. No new registries are created.

  (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?

The ABNF has been extracted and checked for parsability and
internal self-consistency.

  (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 specification extends the Internet Message Access Protocol
  version 4rev1 (IMAP4rev1) to support unencoded international
  characters in user names, mail addresses and message headers.

    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?

The WG has consensus on the mechanisms described in this
document.

    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?

        Alexey Melnikov has reviewed this document most carefully
        before becoming the responsible AD.
        There is one known implementation of the document.
2009-09-08
09 Robert Sparks [Ballot comment]
Appendix B (Acknowledgments) still says TBD.
2009-09-08
09 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-09-08
09 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Why is this going for Experimental instead of PS?


Section 3.1., paragraph 7:
>    would be the same as if other syntacticly …
[Ballot comment]
Why is this going for Experimental instead of PS?


Section 3.1., paragraph 7:
>    would be the same as if other syntacticly valid but semantically

  Nit: s/syntacticly/syntactically/


Section 3.4., paragraph 1:
>    "LIST-EXTENEDED" [RFC5258] capability, the server MUST support the

  Nit: s/"LIST-EXTENEDED"/"LIST-EXTENDED"/
2009-09-08
09 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-09-05
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Note that the normative reference to obsolete RFC 1341 is intentional. The name …
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Note that the normative reference to obsolete RFC 1341 is intentional. The name parameter was defined in RFC 1341 across all media types. The subsequent version of MIME (2045/2046) deprecated it.' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-09-04
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-08.txt
2009-09-03
09 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Paul Hoffman.
2009-09-02
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Please note that SecDir and GenArt review comments are addressed via RFC Editor …
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Please note that SecDir and GenArt review comments are addressed via RFC Editor notes.
Also note that the reference to obsolete RFC 1341 is intentional. The name parameter was defined in RFC 1341 across all media types. The subsequent version of MIME (2045/2046) deprecated it.' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-09-02
09 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Alexey Melnikov
2009-09-01
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
David Black suggested in GenArt review:

Section 2 ought to introduce what's being added to the protocol.
Adaptations of the first two sentences …
[Ballot comment]
David Black suggested in GenArt review:

Section 2 ought to introduce what's being added to the protocol.
Adaptations of the first two sentences in Section 10 (IANA
Considerations) would suffice.

While not strictly a security consideration, it would be useful for
section 11 to point out the potential for user confusion caused by
SEARCH command match strings that have different UTF-8 representations
but display identically or similarly (strings that look like they
should match don't).


Barry Leiba suggested:

  The UTF8=ONLY capability implies the UTF8 base capability, the
  UTF8=ALL capability and the UTF8=APPEND capability.  A server which
  advertises UTF8=ONLY need not advertise the three implicit
  capabilities.

Oy.  This makes parsing the capability string complicated, and should
be earlier in the document.  It'd be good to make this clear at the
beginning, when the UTF8 capability is first mentioned.
2009-09-01
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
Davi Black suggested in GenArt review:

Section 2 ought to introduce what's being added to the protocol.
Adaptations of the first two sentences …
[Ballot comment]
Davi Black suggested in GenArt review:

Section 2 ought to introduce what's being added to the protocol.
Adaptations of the first two sentences in Section 10 (IANA
Considerations) would suffice.

While not strictly a security consideration, it would be useful for
section 11 to point out the potential for user confusion caused by
SEARCH command match strings that have different UTF-8 representations
but display identically or similarly (strings that look like they
should match don't).
2009-09-01
09 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2009-09-01
09 Alexey Melnikov Ballot has been issued by Alexey Melnikov
2009-09-01
09 Alexey Melnikov Created "Approve" ballot
2009-08-31
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Please note that SecDir review comments are addressed via RFC Editor notes.
Also …
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Please note that SecDir review comments are addressed via RFC Editor notes.
Also note that the reference to obsolete RFC 1341 is intentional. The name parameter was defined in RFC 1341 across all media types. The subsequent version of MIME (2045/2046) deprecated it.' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-31
09 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-08-29
09 Alexey Melnikov
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Please note that SecDir review comments are addressed via RFC Editor notes.
' …
[Note]: 'Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> has agreed to shepherd the document.
Please note that SecDir review comments are addressed via RFC Editor notes.
' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-28
09 Alexey Melnikov [Note]: 'Please note that SecDir review comments are addressed via RFC Editor notes.
' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-27
09 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA create the following:

===================================
New assignments in the "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) 4
Capabilities Registry" …
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA create the following:

===================================
New assignments in the "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) 4
Capabilities Registry" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities

Capability Name Reference
---------------- ------------------
UTF8 [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07]
UTF8=USER [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07]
UTF8=APPEND [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07]
UTF8=ALL [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07]
UTF8=ONLY [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07]


===================================
New assignments in the "LIST-EXTENDED options" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-list-extended

LIST-EXTENDED option name: UTF8
LIST-EXTENDED option type: SELECTION
Implied return options(s): UTF8
LIST-EXTENDED option description: Causes the LIST response to
include mailboxes which mandate the UTF8 SELECT/EXAMINE
parameter.
Published specification: [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07], Section 3.4.1
Security considerations: [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07], Section 11
Intended usage: COMMON
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Pete Resnick, presnick@qualcomm.com
Chris Newman, chris.newman@sun.com
Owner/Change controller: iesg@ietf.org

LIST-EXTENDED option name: UTF8ONLY
LIST-EXTENDED option type: SELECTION
Implied return options(s): UTF8
LIST-EXTENDED option description: Causes the LIST response to
include mailboxes which mandate the UTF8 SELECT/EXAMINE parameter
and exclude mailboxes which do not support the UTF8 SELECT/
EXAMINE parameter.
Published specification: [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07], Section 3.4.1
Security considerations: [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07], Section 11
Intended usage: COMMON
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Pete Resnick, presnick@qualcomm.com
Chris Newman, chris.newman@sun.com
Owner/Change controller: iesg@ietf.org

LIST-EXTENDED option name: UTF8
LIST-EXTENDED option type: RETURN
Implied return options(s): none
LIST-EXTENDED option description: Causes the LIST response to
include \NoUTF8 and \UTF8Only mailbox attributes.
Published specification: [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07], Section 3.4.1
Security considerations: [RFC-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07], Section 11
Intended usage: COMMON
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Pete Resnick, presnick@qualcomm.com
Chris Newman, chris.newman@sun.com
Owner/Change controller: iesg@ietf.org
2009-08-27
09 Alexey Melnikov Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-18
09 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman
2009-08-18
09 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman
2009-08-17
09 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-08-17
09 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-08-15
09 Alexey Melnikov Last Call was requested by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-15
09 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-08-15
09 (System) Last call text was added
2009-08-15
09 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-08-15
09 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed by Alexey Melnikov
2009-07-27
09 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from AD is watching by Alexey Melnikov
2009-07-27
09 Alexey Melnikov Sent AD review to the EAI mailing list.
2009-07-05
09 Alexey Melnikov Draft Added by Alexey Melnikov in state AD is watching
2009-06-25
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-07.txt
2009-06-25
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-06.txt
2009-06-22
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-05.txt
2009-05-07
09 (System) Document has expired
2008-11-03
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-04.txt
2008-04-24
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-03.txt
2007-11-19
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-02.txt
2007-03-07
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-01.txt
2006-05-31
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-00.txt