IMAP4 Extensions for Quick Mailbox Resynchronization
draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2007-10-23
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2007-10-23
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2007-10-23
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2007-10-23
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2007-10-22
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2007-10-22
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2007-10-22
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2007-10-22
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2007-10-22
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2007-10-19
|
06 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-10-18 |
2007-10-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2007-10-18
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2007-10-18
|
06 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2007-10-18
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2007-10-18
|
06 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot comment] I did not completely review the interactions when multiple clients are manipulating a mailbox at the same time. It looks complicated. I'm assuming … [Ballot comment] I did not completely review the interactions when multiple clients are manipulating a mailbox at the same time. It looks complicated. I'm assuming that it has been thoroughly checked; if that is true, this spec looks good. |
2007-10-18
|
06 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman |
2007-10-18
|
06 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2007-10-18
|
06 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] From Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter. The reference to AUTH48 in the IANA Considerations should be removed. Normally such an update … [Ballot discuss] From Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter. The reference to AUTH48 in the IANA Considerations should be removed. Normally such an update would be made by arrangement between IANA and the RFC Editor. This document should not specify a later than usual assignment time. |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] As a general rule, I am comfortable with security considerations by reference. No one should have to cut and paste the material out … [Ballot comment] As a general rule, I am comfortable with security considerations by reference. No one should have to cut and paste the material out of an RFC you already reference. However, I do believe it is unfair to readers to provide iterative referrals. The Security Considerations section in this document is basically two pointers to the security considerations in [CONDSTORE] and [RFC3501]. [CONDSTORE] (now RFC 4551) is mentioned twice, so I really expected to find some content in the Security Considerations section. However, [CONDSTORE]'s Security Considerations section is only two sentences, and one is a pointer to the security considerations in [RFC3501]. It might be better to replicate the content of CONDSTORE's security considerations section in this document. |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2007-10-17
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2007-10-16
|
06 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2007-10-16
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations section is basically a pointer to the security considerations in [CONDSTORE] and [RFC3501]. [CONDSTORE] is mentioned twice, so … [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations section is basically a pointer to the security considerations in [CONDSTORE] and [RFC3501]. [CONDSTORE] is mentioned twice, so I really expected to find some content in the Security Considerations section. However, [CONDSTORE]'s Security Considerations section is basically a pointer to the security considerations in [RFC3501]. This makes me worry that something important should have been documented in CONDSTORE and has not been. I am a bit less concerned about things falling through since Alexey Melnikov is co-author of both documents, of course. |
2007-10-14
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2007-10-09
|
06 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Chris Newman |
2007-10-09
|
06 | Chris Newman | Ballot has been issued by Chris Newman |
2007-10-09
|
06 | Chris Newman | Created "Approve" ballot |
2007-10-09
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Eric Rescorla. |
2007-10-02
|
06 | Chris Newman | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-10-18 by Chris Newman |
2007-10-02
|
06 | Chris Newman | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Chris Newman |
2007-09-29
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla |
2007-09-29
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla |
2007-09-29
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Juergen Quittek was rejected |
2007-09-28
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-09-28
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-06.txt |
2007-09-26
|
06 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Chris Newman |
2007-09-26
|
06 | Chris Newman | Waiting for clarifications from last call. |
2007-07-26
|
06 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2007-07-19
|
06 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IMAP4 Capabilities Registry [RFC3501]" registry … IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IMAP4 Capabilities Registry [RFC3501]" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities Capability Name Reference --------------- --------- [TBD-X-DRAFT-W05-QRESYNC] [RFC-lemonade-reconnect-client-05] We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
2007-07-16
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2007-07-16
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
2007-07-16
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Alexey Melnikov was rejected |
2007-07-12
|
06 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Chris Newman |
2007-07-12
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2007-07-12
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2007-07-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2007-07-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2007-07-12
|
06 | Chris Newman | Last Call was requested by Chris Newman |
2007-07-12
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2007-07-12
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2007-07-12
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2007-06-11
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-06-11
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-05.txt |
2007-05-17
|
06 | Chris Newman | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::External Party by Chris Newman |
2007-05-16
|
06 | Chris Newman | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested::AD Followup by Chris Newman |
2007-05-16
|
06 | Chris Newman | Raised 4 specific architecture concerns with Lemonade WG, waiting for response. |
2007-04-26
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2007-04-26
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-04.txt |
2007-04-25
|
06 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Chris Newman |
2007-04-25
|
06 | Chris Newman | Alexey got mailing list last call comments from Dan Karp |
2007-03-24
|
06 | Chris Newman | Responsible AD has been changed to Chris Newman from Ted Hardie |
2007-03-20
|
06 | Dinara Suleymanova | (1.a) Document Shepherd: Eric Burger, eburger@bea.com , personally reviewed this document. This document is ready for publication. (1.b) Work group review: The lemonade work group … (1.a) Document Shepherd: Eric Burger, eburger@bea.com , personally reviewed this document. This document is ready for publication. (1.b) Work group review: The lemonade work group provided review of this document. There were a few comments by Randy Gellens on the WGLC of -02; the two changes are incorporated in -03. (1.c) Further review required: This document does not need further specialized review, as it has received review by many members of the IMAP community. (1.d.i) Document Shepherd Comfort Level: High (1.d.ii) Document Useful and Needed: Yes (1.d.iii) IPR Disclosures: None known (1.e) WG Consensus: There was virtually no comment on this revision, mainly because there was substantial comment on the previous version that was addressed. This group is normally very vocal if there are problems. The only substantial comment was by a client implementer who said that the protocol would ³do no harm.² (1.f) There are no members with objections or concerns. There are no threats of appeal or process issues. (1.g) ID-nits: Check and verified with idnits 2.04.01 (1.h) References: All references (normative and informative) are current RFCs, checked with rfc-what-i-mean (11/06) (1.i) IANA Considerations: Yes, correct, consistent, and follows RFC 3501 rules; note that actual capability name will be given to IANA during AUTH48. (1.j) ABNF: Passes Bill¹s ABNF Parser (1.k) Document Announcement: Technical Summary This document defines an IMAP4 extension, which gives an IMAP client the ability to quickly resynchronize any previously opened mailbox as part of the SELECT command, without the need for server-side state or additional client round-trips. This extension also introduces a new response that allows for a more compact representation for a list of expunged messages. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. There are three client implementations and four server implementations by work group members. Document Quality Virtually all members of the Lemonade WG have reviewed the document. The document has been checked manually and using idnits 2.04.01, and passed both checks. Eric Burger shepherds this document, has reviewed this document, and believes that this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. |
2007-03-20
|
06 | Dinara Suleymanova | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-melnikov-imap-expunged. |
2007-02-28
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-03.txt |
2006-11-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-02.txt |
2006-11-25
|
06 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-melnikov-imap-expunged. |
2006-11-25
|
06 | (System) | Draft Added by the IESG Secretary in state 0. by system |
2006-07-31
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-01.txt |
2006-06-19
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-00.txt |