Skip to main content

IMAP Extension for only using and returning UIDs
draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-04-10
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2024-04-10
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2024-04-10
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2024-04-09
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2024-04-04
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-04-04
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-04-04
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-04-04
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-04-04
08 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-04-04
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-04-04
08 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2024-04-04
08 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-04-04
08 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2024-04-04
08 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2024-04-04
08 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-04-04
08 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-08.txt
2024-04-04
08 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2024-04-04
08 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2024-04-04
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-04-04
07 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-04-04
07 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-04-04
07 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-04-03
07 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-04-03
07 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-04-03
07 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-04-02
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-04-02
07 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Elwyn Davies for the GENART review.
2024-04-02
07 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-04-02
07 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Barry for the ARTART review, and to Magnus for his SECDIR review.
2024-04-02
07 Mahesh Jethanandani [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani
2024-04-01
07 Orie Steele [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Barry Leiba for the ARTART review.

And for addressing his feedback.
2024-04-01
07 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2024-04-01
07 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-03-30
07 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-03-22
07 Barry Leiba Request for Telechat review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. Sent review to list.
2024-03-22
07 Barry Leiba Request for Telechat review by ARTART is assigned to Barry Leiba
2024-03-19
07 Jenny Bui Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-04-04
2024-03-18
07 Murray Kucherawy Ballot has been issued
2024-03-18
07 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-03-18
07 Murray Kucherawy Created "Approve" ballot
2024-03-18
07 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2024-03-18
07 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was changed
2024-03-18
07 (System) Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed)
2024-03-18
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-03-18
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-03-18
07 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-07.txt
2024-03-18
07 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2024-03-18
07 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2024-03-18
06 (System) Changed action holders to Alexey Melnikov, ArunPrakash Achuthan, Vikram Nagulakonda, Ashutosh Singh, Luis Alves (IESG state changed)
2024-03-18
06 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-03-15
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-03-13
06 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. Sent review to list.
2024-03-11
06 Magnus Nyström Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. Sent review to list.
2024-03-08
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-03-08
06 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-06. 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-uidonly-06. 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 Capabilities registry in the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) Capabilities Registry group located at:

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

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

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

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

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

a single new registration is to be made as follows:

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

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

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
2024-03-08
06 Elwyn Davies Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list.
2024-03-08
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nyström
2024-03-07
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2024-03-05
06 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2024-03-04
06 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2024-03-03
06 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Barry Leiba
2024-03-01
06 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-03-01
06 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, murch@fastmailteam.com, superuser@gmail.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly@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:  (IMAP Extension for only using and returning UIDs) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Email mailstore and eXtensions To
Revise or Amend WG (extra) to consider the following document: - 'IMAP
Extension for only using and returning UIDs'
  as Experimental RFC

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 2024-03-15. 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


  The UIDONLY extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol (RFC
  3501
/RFC 9051) allows clients to enable a mode in which information
  about mailbox changes is returned using only UIDs.  Message numbers
  are not returned in responses, and can't be used in requests once
  this extension is enabled.  This helps both clients and servers to
  reduce resource usage required to maintain a map between message
  numbers and UIDs.




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



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




2024-03-01
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-03-01
06 Murray Kucherawy Last call was requested
2024-03-01
06 Murray Kucherawy Ballot approval text was generated
2024-03-01
06 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was generated
2024-03-01
06 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2024-03-01
06 Murray Kucherawy Last call announcement was generated
2024-02-14
06 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-02-11
06 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.

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 a server implementation from a major vendor (Yahoo!) deployed and
interoperating with client implementations from Google, Microsoft, and
FairEmail.
Another server implementation (Cyrus) and a client implementation
(Isode) are being developed.
None of the existing implementations are reported in this document but
the source code of the Cyrus implementation 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 and response code to be added to the
existing IANA registries were 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 extensions to the IMAP ABNF syntax have 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, provides a useful optimization, 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?

Experimental, as stated in the Datatracker.
The community would like to get more operational experience with this
extension before potentially revising it and moving it to Proposed Standard.

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.

All authors and contributors are willing to be listed as such.

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.)

I-D nits:
- A couple of too long lines, both which appear to be an xml2rfc
formatting issue.
- A bogus complaint about a missing reference to the RFCXXXX
placeholder for this document.
- A complaint about an obsolete reference to RFC 3501.
The EXTRA WG has been doing parallel references to both RFC 3501
(IMAP4rev1) and RFC 9051 (IMAP4rev2).
- A warning about using the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.  This document MAY
have copied some text from an older I-D/RFC (e.g. RFC 3501).

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.

RFC 3501.

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/

2024-02-11
06 Bron Gondwana IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2024-02-11
06 Bron Gondwana IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-02-11
06 (System) Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed)
2024-02-11
06 Bron Gondwana Responsible AD changed to Murray Kucherawy
2024-02-11
06 Bron Gondwana Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-12-05
06 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.

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 a server implementation from a major vendor (Yahoo!) deployed and
interoperating with client implementations from Google, Microsoft, and
FairEmail.
Another server implementation (Cyrus) and a client implementation
(Isode) are being developed.
None of the existing implementations are reported in this document but
the source code of the Cyrus implementation 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 and response code to be added to the
existing IANA registries were 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 extensions to the IMAP ABNF syntax have 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, provides a useful optimization, 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?

Experimental, as stated in the Datatracker.
The community would like to get more operational experience with this
extension before potentially revising it and moving it to Proposed Standard.

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.

All authors and contributors are willing to be listed as such.

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.)

I-D nits:
- A couple of too long lines, both which appear to be an xml2rfc
formatting issue.
- A bogus complaint about a missing reference to the RFCXXXX
placeholder for this document.
- A complaint about an obsolete reference to RFC 3501.
The EXTRA WG has been doing parallel references to both RFC 3501
(IMAP4rev1) and RFC 9051 (IMAP4rev2).
- A warning about using the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.  This document MAY
have copied some text from an older I-D/RFC (e.g. RFC 3501).

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.

RFC 3501.

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/

2023-12-05
06 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-06.txt
2023-12-05
06 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2023-12-05
06 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2023-11-30
05 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-05.txt
2023-11-30
05 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2023-11-30
05 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2023-11-30
04 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-04.txt
2023-11-30
04 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2023-11-30
04 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2023-11-19
03 Bron Gondwana Notification list changed to murch@fastmailteam.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-11-19
03 Bron Gondwana Document shepherd changed to Kenneth Murchison
2023-11-09
03 Bron Gondwana IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-10-30
03 Bron Gondwana Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2023-10-23
03 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-03.txt
2023-10-23
03 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2023-10-23
03 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2023-08-31
02 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-02.txt
2023-08-31
02 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2023-08-31
02 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2023-03-03
01 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-01.txt
2023-03-03
01 Alexey Melnikov New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alexey Melnikov)
2023-03-03
01 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision
2023-01-30
00 Bron Gondwana This document now replaces draft-melnikov-imap-uidonly instead of None
2023-01-30
00 Alexey Melnikov New version available: draft-ietf-extra-imap-uidonly-00.txt
2023-01-30
00 Bron Gondwana WG -00 approved
2023-01-30
00 Alexey Melnikov Set submitter to "Alexey Melnikov ", replaces to draft-melnikov-imap-uidonly and sent approval email to group chairs: extra-chairs@ietf.org
2023-01-30
00 Alexey Melnikov Uploaded new revision