Skip to main content

IMAP4 Response Code for Command Progress Notifications.
draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-04-04
06 Marco Bettini New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-06.txt
2024-04-04
06 (System) New version approved
2024-04-04
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marco Bettini
2024-04-04
06 Marco Bettini Uploaded new revision
2024-04-04
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-04-04
05 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-04-03
05 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]
I see no Operational Considerations section, so I wanted to confirm that it is not expected that clients
not implementing this talking to …
[Ballot comment]
I see no Operational Considerations section, so I wanted to confirm that it is not expected that clients
not implementing this talking to servers that do implement this would somehow cause a failure. I assume
as this is part of the "OK" response that valid clients would not break on receiving "OK INPROGRESS",
but has any testing be done on this?
2024-04-03
05 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-04-03
05 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document -- it seems like it will provide a helpful feature to users. Also much thanks to Dan …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document -- it seems like it will provide a helpful feature to users. Also much thanks to Dan Romascanu for the helpful OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2024-02-12/)

I had a few nits to offer, to help further improve the document:
1: The server can provide the progress notifications details with different degrees of completeness:
s/notifications/notification/

2:  [5 second later]
s/second/seconds/

3: If that is not possible, the counts SHOULD be percentages, with progress varying between 0 and 99 and goal fixed at 100.
"and goal fixed at 100" sounds clumsy, but I don't really know how to fix it -- perhaps just "the goal fixed at 100."?

4: "as that would mean the command completed and that the proper tagged response should be emitted instead."
s/the command completed/the command has completed/ - I think?
s/and that the/and so the/ -- I think?

5: "The details of the response code are not expected to disclose any information that isn't currently available from commands output. "
s/commands output/the command's output/

6: "The progress details could be obtained anyway by a series of sending commands with different workloads - either by constructing data sets or searching in the appropriate way into them."
I don't really know how to fix this, but "searching in the appropriate way into them." doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps just s/into them// ?

7: "like GOAL = 0, GOAL/VALUE < 0, GOAL/VALUE >= 2^32. (these are not possible"
s/\.//
2024-04-03
05 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2024-04-03
05 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-04-02
05 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Meral Shirazipour for the GENART review.

** Section 4.  Editorial.
  If the server
  elects to send notifications, it …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Meral Shirazipour for the GENART review.

** Section 4.  Editorial.
  If the server
  elects to send notifications, it is RECOMMENDED that these are sent
  every 10..15 seconds.

Is the “..” notation intended to convey “every 10 to 15 seconds”.  Maybe “10-15 seconds”.

** Section 4.
  PROGRESS and GOAL SHOULD be counts of the kind of item being
  processed - in most cases, messages counts.  If that is not possible,
  the counts SHOULD be percentages, with progress varying between 0 and
  99 and goal fixed at 100.

What happens if neither a message count or percentage is used?  The first sentence states that it is possible that progress is not expressed as a message count.  The second sentence seems to cover a non-mandatory alternative in the form of percentages.  Should the second sentence be a MUST?

** Section 6.
  The details of the response code are not expected to disclose any
  information that isn't currently available from commands output.  The
  progress details could be obtained anyway by a series of sending
  commands with different workloads - either by constructing data sets
  or searching in the appropriate way into them.

It might be more than command outputs.  A client might try to infer server load by the timing of command execution.  INPROGRESS shouldn’t leak more than is possible with other commands.
2024-04-02
05 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-04-01
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-04-01
05 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-03-31
05 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mahesh Jethanandani has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2024-03-31
05 Mahesh Jethanandani
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the document.

There are a few nits that would be nice to fix.

s/receive progress update/receive a progress update/
s/reach …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the document.

There are a few nits that would be nice to fix.

s/receive progress update/receive a progress update/
s/reach at the completion/reach after the completion/
s/keepalive with indication/keepalive with an indication/
s/command completed/command is completed/
s/relation with specific/relation to specific/
s/from commands output/from the command output/
2024-03-31
05 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2024-03-30
05 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-03-30
05 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-03-29
05 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-03-29
05 Gunter Van de Velde
[Ballot comment]
Feel free to ignore or use the suggestions as you find opportune.

I found the abstract reading slightly unnatural. Maybe change slightly the …
[Ballot comment]
Feel free to ignore or use the suggestions as you find opportune.

I found the abstract reading slightly unnatural. Maybe change slightly the styling:

[existing]
  This document defines a new IMAP untagged response code,
  "INPROGRESS", that provides structured numeric progress status
  indication for long-running commands.

[proposed]
  This document defines a new IMAP untagged response code,
  "INPROGRESS", designed to provide a structured, numeric
  progress status indication for commands that take a long time
  to execute by the server.
2024-03-29
05 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-03-28
05 Orie Steele
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Scott Hollenbeck for the ARTART review.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04-artart-lc-hollenbeck-2024-02-08/

It does not appear that his suggestion was applied, I believe applying it could …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Scott Hollenbeck for the ARTART review.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04-artart-lc-hollenbeck-2024-02-08/

It does not appear that his suggestion was applied, I believe applying it could improve the document.
2024-03-28
05 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2024-03-04
05 Scott Hollenbeck Request for Telechat review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Hollenbeck. Sent review to list.
2024-03-03
05 Barry Leiba Request for Telechat review by ARTART is assigned to Scott Hollenbeck
2024-02-29
05 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-04-04
2024-02-29
05 Murray Kucherawy Ballot has been issued
2024-02-29
05 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was changed
2024-02-29
05 Murray Kucherawy Ballot has been issued
2024-02-29
05 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-02-29
05 Murray Kucherawy Created "Approve" ballot
2024-02-29
05 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-02-29
05 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was changed
2024-02-15
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-02-14
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-02-14
05 Marco Bettini New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-05.txt
2024-02-14
05 Marco Bettini New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Bettini)
2024-02-14
05 Marco Bettini Uploaded new revision
2024-02-13
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-13
04 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the IMAP Response Codes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-response-codes/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Response Code: INPROGRESS
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Status Description:

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the IMAP Capabilities registry in the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) Capabilities Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-capabilities/

a single new capability will be registered as follows:

Capability Name: INPROGRESS
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-02-13
04 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-02-13
04 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2024-02-12
04 Dan Romascanu Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list.
2024-02-08
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2024-02-08
04 Scott Hollenbeck Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Scott Hollenbeck. Sent review to list.
2024-02-07
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2024-02-06
04 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Scott Hollenbeck
2024-02-06
04 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2024-02-05
04 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2024-02-04
04 Valery Smyslov Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Valery Smyslov. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-02-04
04 Valery Smyslov Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Valery Smyslov.
2024-02-02
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Valery Smyslov
2024-02-01
04 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-01
04 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, murch@fastmailteam.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, murch@fastmailteam.com, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IMAP4 Response Code for Command Progress Notifications.) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Email mailstore and eXtensions To
Revise or Amend WG (extra) to consider the following document: - 'IMAP4
Response Code for Command Progress Notifications.'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a new IMAP untagged response code,
  "INPROGRESS", that provides structured numeric progress status
  indication for long-running commands.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2024-02-01
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-02-01
04 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2024-01-31
04 Murray Kucherawy Last call was requested
2024-01-31
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot approval text was generated
2024-01-31
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was generated
2024-01-31
04 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2024-01-31
04 Murray Kucherawy Last call announcement was generated
2024-01-31
04 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-01-30
04 Bron Gondwana
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement.
This document went through several iterations based on feedback from
multiple people both on the mailing list and during IETF meetings.
The reviewers combine vast IMAP implementation and operational experience.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.
This document represents a fairly small, non-controvertial change to IMAP.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No known appeals.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one existing server implementation (Dovecot).
Two other server vendors (Isode, Cyrus) have indicated plans to
implement this extension.
The existing implementation is not reported in this document but its
source code is available on GitHub.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No outside interaction.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The new IMAP capability string to be added to the existing IANA
registry was reviewed by the WG, where the majority of the IMAP
experts participate.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The extension to the IMAP ABNF syntax has been validated with the
IETF "BAP" tool.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.
This document is clearly written, solves an existing problem, and as
stated above, it has had substantial review to validate both its
correctness and completeness.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The ABNF in the document has been validated with the "BAP" tool as
prescribed by the "Typical ART Area Issues" document.
All other potential ARTAREA issues listed are N/A to this document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.
The problem that this document addresses is well-understood and the
solution specified has received significant community review.
Several vendors have expressed interest in implementing and/or
supporting this extension.
One existing server implementation has been deployed and has not
resulted in any interop issues with existing clients.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

There are no known IPR claims against this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The author has listed himself as such in the document.
No other contributors have been mentioned.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document passes idnits, with the exception that the tool mistakes the
[INPROGRESS] IMAP response code as a reference.
Otherwise, it meets all of the "Content Guidelines".

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.
All references appear to be catagorized properly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.
All normative references are already published.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document correctly adds an IMAP capability and an IMAP response
code to the appropriate IANA registries, both of which are clearly
identified by their URLs.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document does not create any new registries.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2024-01-30
04 Bron Gondwana IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2024-01-30
04 Bron Gondwana IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-01-30
04 (System) Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed)
2024-01-30
04 Bron Gondwana Responsible AD changed to Murray Kucherawy
2024-01-30
04 Bron Gondwana Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-01-30
04 Marco Bettini New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-04.txt
2024-01-30
04 Marco Bettini New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Bettini)
2024-01-30
04 Marco Bettini Uploaded new revision
2023-11-29
03 Kenneth Murchison
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Broad agreement.
This document went through several iterations based on feedback from
multiple people both on the mailing list and during IETF meetings.
The reviewers combine vast IMAP implementation and operational experience.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.
This document represents a fairly small, non-controvertial change to IMAP.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No known appeals.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is one existing server implementation (Dovecot).
Two other server vendors (Isode, Cyrus) have indicated plans to
implement this extension.
The existing implementation is not reported in this document but its
source code is available on GitHub.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No outside interaction.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The new IMAP capability string to be added to the existing IANA
registry was reviewed by the WG, where the majority of the IMAP
experts participate.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The extension to the IMAP ABNF syntax has been validated with the
IETF "BAP" tool.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.
This document is clearly written, solves an existing problem, and as
stated above, it has had substantial review to validate both its
correctness and completeness.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The ABNF in the document has been validated with the "BAP" tool as
prescribed by the "Typical ART Area Issues" document.
All other potential ARTAREA issues listed are N/A to this document.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.
The problem that this document addresses is well-understood and the
solution specified has received significant community review.
Several vendors have expressed interest in implementing and/or
supporting this extension.
One existing server implementation has been deployed and has not
resulted in any interop issues with existing clients.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

There are no known IPR claims against this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The author has listed himself as such in the document.
No other contributors have been mentioned.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

This document passes idnits, with the exception that the tool mistakes the
[INPROGRESS] IMAP response code as a reference.
Otherwise, it meets all of the "Content Guidelines".

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.
All references appear to be catagorized properly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.
All normative references are already published.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

This document does not affect any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document correctly adds an IMAP capability and an IMAP response
code to the appropriate IANA registries, both of which are clearly
identified by their URLs.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document does not create any new registries.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-11-21
03 Marco Bettini New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-03.txt
2023-11-21
03 Marco Bettini New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Bettini)
2023-11-21
03 Marco Bettini Uploaded new revision
2023-11-19
02 Bron Gondwana Notification list changed to brong@fastmailteam.com, murch@fastmailteam.com from brong@fastmailteam.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-11-19
02 Bron Gondwana Document shepherd changed to Kenneth Murchison
2023-11-10
02 Marco Bettini New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-02.txt
2023-11-10
02 Marco Bettini New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Bettini)
2023-11-10
02 Marco Bettini Uploaded new revision
2023-10-30
01 Bron Gondwana Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-10-30
01 Bron Gondwana Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2023-10-30
01 Bron Gondwana Please get comments in by the session at IETF118, will submit the week after if no remaining issues.
2023-10-30
01 Bron Gondwana IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-10-30
01 Bron Gondwana Notification list changed to brong@fastmailteam.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-10-30
01 Bron Gondwana Document shepherd changed to Bron Gondwana
2023-09-01
01 Marco Bettini New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-01.txt
2023-09-01
01 Marco Bettini New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Marco Bettini)
2023-09-01
01 Marco Bettini Uploaded new revision
2023-06-28
00 Marco Bettini New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-inprogress-00.txt
2023-06-28
00 Bron Gondwana WG -00 approved
2023-06-28
00 Marco Bettini Set submitter to "Marco Bettini ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: extra-chairs@ietf.org
2023-06-28
00 Marco Bettini Uploaded new revision