Skip to main content

IMAP4 Keyword Registry
draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2009-12-24
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-12-23
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-12-23
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-12-23
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-12-23
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-12-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-12-22
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2009-12-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-12-22
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-12-22
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-12-22
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-12-17
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2009-12-17
10 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-12-17
10 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-12-17
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-12-17
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-12-16
10 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-12-15
10 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2009-12-15
10 (System) State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system
2009-12-11
10 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-10.txt
2009-12-07
09 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-09.txt
2009-12-04
10 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03
2009-12-03
08 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-08.txt
2009-12-02
10 Cullen Jennings State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Cullen Jennings
2009-12-02
10 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 3., paragraph 21:
>    Registration of an IMAP keyword intended for common use (whether or
>    not they use the …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3., paragraph 21:
>    Registration of an IMAP keyword intended for common use (whether or
>    not they use the "$" prefix) requires Expert Review [RFC5226].  After
>    allowing for at least two weeks for community input on the designated
>    mailing list (as described above), the expert will determine the
>    appropriateness of the registration request and either approve or
>    disapprove the request with notice to the requestor, the mailing
>    list, and IANA.  Any refusal must come with a clear explanation.

  Is list input & the required delay really necessary? Don't we trust
  the experts to do the right thing?


Section 3., paragraph 22:
>    The IESG appoints one or more Expert Reviewer, one of which is
>    designated as the primary Expert Reviewer.  IMAP keywords intended
>    for common use SHOULD be standardized in IETF Review [RFC5226]
>    documents.

  What does "primary" mean? Nowhere else in this document is described
  what sets this experts apart from the others. (Suggest to simply
  remove this.)


Section 3.2., paragraph 1:
>    Once an IMAP keyword registration has been published by IANA, the
>    author may request a change to its definition.

  Who is the "author"? Do you mean the owner?


Section 3.2., paragraph 4:
>    IMAP keyword registrations may not be deleted; keywords which are no
>    longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE by a
>    change to their "intended usage" field.

  I believe HISTORIC would be more correct (whenever we say "obsolete"
  we usually saw obsoleted by *what*).
2009-12-02
10 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3., paragraph 27:
>    However such review is still encouraged.  Should the review be
>    requested by registrant or at …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3., paragraph 27:
>    However such review is still encouraged.  Should the review be
>    requested by registrant or at IANA's sole discretion, the Expert
>    Reviewer should encourage vendors to avoid defining similar but
>    incompatible values and instead agree on a single IMAP keyword for
>    common use.

  DISCUSS: So either it's FCFS or it's not. Saying that it is, but then
  allowing an expert to say "but this one I'll review" and then reject
  it is *not* FCFS. It's expert review.


Section 3.1., paragraph 2:
>    Submitters of comments may, after a reasonable attempt to contact the
>    owner and after soliciting comments on the IMAP mailing list, request
>    IANA to attach their comment to the IMAP keyword registration itself
>    by sending mail to .  At IANA sole discretion, IANA
>    may attach the comment to the IMAP keyword registration.

  DISCUSS: I don't understand what the intent is here. The way I read
  this, a person can ask IANA to add a note to a registry entry and IANA
  may decide to do this? Why do we need a process for this? The IESG for
  example can already do this, and if the community wants this to happen
  they can ask us to do so.
2009-12-02
10 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-12-02
10 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-12-02
10 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-12-02
10 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-12-01
10 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-12-01
10 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-01
10 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Section 3

> Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix.
> (Note that this is a SHOULD because some …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3

> Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix.
> (Note that this is a SHOULD because some of the commonly used IMAP
> keywords in widespread use don't follow this convention.)

As discussed, you could insist that all new keywords intended for common use MUST start with the "$" prefix as a definition of the registry.

=======
Nits

---

Through-out
"IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ?

---

Section 2

"cross client interoperability"
What have the clients to be cross about?
Try "cross-client"
2009-12-01
10 Adrian Farrel [Ballot discuss]
2009-12-01
10 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-12-01
10 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-11-30
10 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Nits

---

Through-out
"IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ?

---

Section 2

"cross client interoperability"
What have the clients to be cross about? …
[Ballot comment]
Nits

---

Through-out
"IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ?

---

Section 2

"cross client interoperability"
What have the clients to be cross about?
Try "cross-client"
2009-11-30
10 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3

> Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix.
> (Note that this is a SHOULD because some …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 3

> Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix.
> (Note that this is a SHOULD because some of the commonly used IMAP
> keywords in widespread use don't follow this convention.)

You could insist that all new keywords intended for common use MUST
start with the "$" prefix.
2009-11-30
10 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-11-19
10 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-11-18
10 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault
2009-11-18
10 Lisa Dusseault Ballot has been issued by Lisa Dusseault
2009-11-18
10 Lisa Dusseault Created "Approve" ballot
2009-11-18
10 Lisa Dusseault Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03 by Lisa Dusseault
2009-11-18
10 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lisa Dusseault
2009-11-18
07 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-07.txt
2009-11-18
10 Alexey Melnikov [Note]: 'Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-11-18
10 Alexey Melnikov State Change Notice email list have been change to alexey.melnikov@isode.com, dave.cridland@isode.com, barryleiba@computer.org from alexey.melnikov@isode.com, dave.cridland@isode.com, draft-melnikov-imap-keywords@tools.ietf.org
2009-11-18
10 Alexey Melnikov Note field has been cleared by Alexey Melnikov
2009-11-18
10 Alexey Melnikov [Note]: 'Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-11-16
10 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-11-11
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sam Weiler.
2009-11-09
10 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Registry Name: IMAP Keywords
Registration procedures:
Expert Review for common use keywords (starting with $)
First Come First Serve for vendor specific keywords …
IANA comments:

Registry Name: IMAP Keywords
Registration procedures:
Expert Review for common use keywords (starting with $)
First Come First Serve for vendor specific keywords (starting with vnd.)

The initial content of the registry will be:

Keyword Type Usage Reference
$MDNSent SHARED COMMON [RFC3503]
$Forwarded BOTH COMMON [RFC5550]
$SubmitPending SHARED COMMON [RFC5550]
$Submitted SHARED COMMON [RFC5550]
2009-10-22
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler
2009-10-22
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler
2009-10-22
10 Lisa Dusseault
This is to request the publication of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06,
an individual submission, as a Standards-Track RFC (Proposed
Standard).

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for …
This is to request the publication of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06,
an individual submission, 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, as an individual submission, by IMAP
experts.  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 no working group involved, but consensus of a good section of
the IMAP community is 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 only issue is that the document needs a pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
The authors are holding that in an -07 version until after IETF last
call, so as not to disrupt the last-call process.

(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 separated and labelled.  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 whole point of this document is IANA considerations, and the
requirements are clearly identified throughout.  I have discussed
expert reviewers with the Area Directors.

(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?

There is no formal language in this document.

(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.

Over the years, some IMAP keywords (client-defined flags) have become
de-facto standard, with some specific semantics associated with them.
In some cases, different client implementors have defined and used
keywords with different names, but the same semantics.  Some server
implementors decided to map such keywords to each other automatically
in order to improve cross client interoperability.  In other cases,
the same keywords have been used with different semantics, causing
interoperability problems.

This document attempts to prevent further incompatible uses of IMAP
keywords by establishing an IANA registry for IMAP keywords, and by
allocating a special prefix for standardized keywords.

    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?

Nothing to note.  This is a pretty straightforward creation of an IANA registry.

    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?

The registry is seeded with some keywords that are already in use in
existing implementations.
---------------------------------------------------------------
2009-10-19
10 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-10-19
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-10-19
10 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Lisa Dusseault
2009-10-19
10 Lisa Dusseault Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault
2009-10-19
10 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-10-19
10 (System) Last call text was added
2009-10-19
10 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-10-16
06 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06.txt
2009-10-15
10 Lisa Dusseault Draft Added by Lisa Dusseault in state Publication Requested
2009-10-10
05 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-05.txt
2009-07-13
04 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-04.txt
2006-03-05
10 (System) Document has expired
2005-08-22
03 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-03.txt
2003-09-08
02 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-02.txt
2003-06-30
01 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-01.txt
2002-06-21
00 (System) New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-00.txt