IMAP PARTIAL Extension for Paged SEARCH and FETCH
draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-04

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

I have following comments -

* Abstract and Section 1 : can't parse what "RFC 5267 and RFC 4731/RFC 9051" supposed to mean. A more verbose version would be helpful. I am guessing "RFC 3501/RFC 9051" defined in IMAP version 1 and version 2 both are in scope.

* Please add a ref to ESEARCH on the first appearance of it in section 3.1.

* Section 3.2 : says - "Note for the table: '[m]' means optional "MIN" and/or "MAX"". This confuses me, as I didn't find any clarification on how to interpret m whether it is a MIN or MAX, or MIN and MAX.

* Section 4 : I think it is better idea to be explicit that the format applies (or not applies then we have issues :-) ) to RFC9051.

[Ballot comment]
** The notation of “RFC 5267 and RFC 4731/RFC 9051” appears twice and the slash was a new syntax for me.  If this the equivalent of saying using the “extensions in [RFC5267] and [RFC4731] with IMAP4rev2 [RFC9051]”?

[Ballot comment]
I *almost* balloted DISCUSS on this document on process grounds -- I was under the impression that IMAP documents had to be at least 100 pages long, and this one is barely 1/10th of that. Further research has shown that, while unusual, there is precedent for short IMAP documents so I'll let it slide... :-P


Thank you very much to the authors for writing this document - it seems like it will be very useful.
Also much thanks to Yingzhen Qu for the OpsDir review, which contains some useful nits that the authors should address.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-03

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/2YZk9vkP5VyB1YfzU0rOMXzku4k).

## Comments

### Boilerplate

Document has a TLP Section 6.c.iii "pre-5378" boilerplate. Is this really
needed?

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 2
```
-    prepeding "-" to the index.  For example -1 is the last message, -2
+    prepending "-" to the index.  For example -1 is the last message, -2
+        +
```

### Uncited references

Uncited references: `[RFC7162]`.

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC3501]` to `RFC3501`, which was obsoleted by `RFC9051` (this may
be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4, paragraph 15
```
Yahoo! team and their questions about best client practices for dealing wit
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
A determiner may be missing.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document. Only one minor comment on the security considerations section:

  However, as this is going to be new code in both the
  client and the server, rigorous testing of such code is required in
  order to avoid introducing of new implementation bugs.

I wasn't convinced that this is really relevant to the security considerations of the specification, and presumably this text equally applies to all implementations for new features in all specifications.  Hence, I would suggest that this text could probably just be elided from the document.

Finally, thanks to Yingzhen for the OPSDIR review.

Regards,
Rob

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the IMAP Capabilities registry on the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) Capabilities Registry registry page located at:

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

a single, new capability is to be registered as follows:

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

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-11-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IMAP Paged SEARCH & FETCH Extension) 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: - 'IMAP Paged
SEARCH & FETCH Extension'
  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 2022-11-19. 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


  The PARTIAL extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol (RFC
  3501/RFC 9051) allows clients to limit the number of search results
  returned, as well as to perform incremental (paged) searches.  This
  also helps servers to optimize resource usage when performing
  searches.

  This document extends PARTIAL SEARCH return option originally
  specified in RFC 5267.  It also clarifies some interactions between
  RFC 5267 and RFC 4731/RFC 9051.




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



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

# 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?

The first version of this document had objections, and it was rewritten to be
something quite simple.  The group is quite small, and everybody who responded
was positive about this version.

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

There's no controversy about the current version of the document.

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.

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)?

This is implemented by Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google in their proxies for talking
with the Yahoo and AOL servers.

## 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.

There's no interactions outside this working group.

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.

There are no expert reviews required.

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]?

There's no YANG.

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 ABNF was validated with the author-tools.ietf.org ABNF checker.

## 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, it's ready.

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?

This document doesn't need any additional reviews for common issues.

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?

Datatracker matches "Proposed Standard".  The document itself says "Standards
Track", possibly based on an old template.  It extends existing proposed
standards.

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.

Yes, authors are unaware of any IPR.

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.

Yes, authors have shown willingness.

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.)

There's one overly long line which is from a protocol wire example and can't be
easily wrapped without making it hard to understand the example.  This is quite
frustrating when giving examples of wire format traffic in RFCs!

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

No, they seem right - the one Informative reference shows interactions but is not
required.

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 references are to 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.

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.

No.

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 IANA considerations are very simple and just add an item to an existing
registry.

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.

No 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/

# 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?

The first version of this document had objections, and it was rewritten to be
something quite simple.  The group is quite small, and everybody who responded
was positive about this version.

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

There's no controversy about the current version of the document.

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.

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)?

This is implemented by Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google in their proxies for talking
with the Yahoo and AOL servers.

## 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.

There's no interactions outside this working group.

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.

There are no expert reviews required.

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]?

There's no YANG.

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 ABNF was validated with the author-tools.ietf.org ABNF checker.

## 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, it's ready.

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?

This document doesn't need any additional reviews for common issues.

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?

Datatracker matches "Proposed Standard".  The document itself says "Standards
Track", possibly based on an old template.  It extends existing proposed
standards.

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.

Yes, authors are unaware of any IPR.

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.

Yes, authors have shown willingness.

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.)

There's one overly long line which is from a protocol wire example and can't be
easily wrapped without making it hard to understand the example.  This is quite
frustrating when giving examples of wire format traffic in RFCs!

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

No, they seem right - the one Informative reference shows interactions but is not
required.

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 references are to 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.

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.

No.

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 IANA considerations are very simple and just add an item to an existing
registry.

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.

No 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/