IMAP4 Extension for Returning STATUS Information in Extended LIST
draft-ietf-morg-status-in-list-01

IANA comments:

Action #1:
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment
in the "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) 4 Capabilities Registry"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities

Registry:
Capability Name Reference
-------------------------- ------------------
X-DRAFT-I00-LIST-STATUS [RFC-morg-status-in-list-01]


Action #2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment
in the "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) 4 LIST EXTENDED registry"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-list-extended

LIST-EXTENDED option name: STATUS
LIST-EXTENDED option type: RETURN
LIST-EXTENDED option description: Causes the LIST command to return
STATUS responses in addition to LIST responses.
Published specification : [RFC-morg-status-in-list-01]
Security considerations: [RFC-morg-status-in-list-01]
Intended usage: COMMON
Person and email address to contact for further information: Alexey
Melnikov

Owner/Change controller: iesg@ietf.org


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

The MORG Working Group requests the publication of
draft-ietf-morg-status-in-list-01 as a Standards-Track RFC (Proposed
Standard).

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
      document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
      version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd.  I have reviewed this version,
and am satisfied that it's ready.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
      and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
      any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

The document has adequate review, and I have no concerns.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
      e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
      AAA, internationalization or XML?

I have no concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
      or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
      has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
      event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
      that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
      concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
      been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
      disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
      this issue.

I have no concerns.  There is no IPR involved.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
      represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
      others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
      agree with it?

There is consensus of the working group, as a whole, behind it.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
      met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
      Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document satisfies nit checking (idnits 2.11.14) and formal review criteria.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative? Are there normative references to documents that
      are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
      state? If such normative references exist, what is the
      strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
      that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
      so, list these downward references to support the Area
      Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

All references are properly labelled (all are normative).  There are
no downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
      of the document? If the document specifies protocol
      extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
      registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
      the document creates a new registry, does it define the
      proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
      procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
      reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
      document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
      conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
      can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
      code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
      an automated checker?

The formal grammar is correct, and validates with BAP.  There are only
two lines....

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary
      Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
      and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
      an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
      or introduction.

Many IMAP clients display information about total number of
messages/total number of unseen messages in IMAP mailboxes.  In order
to do that they are forced to issue a LIST or LSUB command, to list
all available mailboxes, followed by a STATUS command for each mailbox
found.  This document provides an extension to LIST command that
allows the client to request STATUS information for mailboxes together
with other information typically returned by the LIST command.

    Working Group Summary
      Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
      example, was there controversy about particular points or
      were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
      rough?

There is concern that a client can adversely affect a mail server by
misusing this command in a situation with an extremely large number of
mailboxes, and/or where retrieving status information for the
mailboxes is very slow.  The reality, though, is that such clients
will already have the same effect by sending -- perhaps pipelining --
a very large number of STATUS commands.  This point is noted in the
Security Considerations.

    Document Quality
      Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
      significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
      implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
      merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
      e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
      conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
      there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
      what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
      review, on what date was the request posted?

Several server implementors and at least a few client implementors are
interested, and say they plan to implement this extension.  There's at
least one existing implementation, from Dovecot.  There has been
nothing of particular note related to reviews.
--------------------------------------------------------