IMAP4 Extension for Named Searches (Filters)
draft-melnikov-imapext-filters-08

[Ballot comment]
Carl Wallace noted some editorial errors in his secdir review (posted Dec. 8).

In particular, the equivalency statement for the example search command in
section 3.1 appears to be missing an OR.  Perhaps the following edit is needed?

OLD:
  C: a SEARCH UID 300:900 SMALLER 5000 FROM "boss@example.com"
  SINCE "3-Dec-2002"
NEW:
  C: a SEARCH UID 300:900 OR SMALLER 5000 FROM "boss@example.com"
  SINCE "3-Dec-2002"

Other comments from Carl's review:

In section 2, "if both filter type with the same exist" should be "if
both filter types with the same name exist".  In the same sentence, "is
going to use" should probably be "MUST use".

Should the server check the syntax of the filter before storing?  The
fourth paragraph of section 3.2 gives the impression that any "non NIL
value" may be stored.

IANA comments:

[Note: Action 2 depends on completing the actions from
draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore ]

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "IMAP 4 Capabilities" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities

Capability Name Reference
-------------------------- ------------------
FILTERS [RFC-melnikov-imapext-filters-06]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "METADATA Server" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD


Name | Content-Type | Reference
--------------------------------------------+-------------------+-----------
/private/filters/values/ | text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
[RFC-melnikov-imapext-filters-06]
/public/filters/values/ | text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
[RFC-melnikov-imapext-filters-06]
/private/filters/descriptions/ | text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
[RFC-melnikov-imapext-filters-06]
/public/filters/descriptions/ | text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
[RFC-melnikov-imapext-filters-06]


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

Lemonade WG chairs want this to be a lemonade document (based on my advice).  No plan to rename draft due to references, but once Lemonade last call completes we'll change ownership.

State Change Notice email list have been change to alexey.melnikov@isode.com, Curtis.King@isode.com, dave.cridland@isode.com, draft-melnikov-imapext-filters@tools.ietf.org, lemonade-chairs@tools.ietf.org from alexey.melnikov@isode.com, Curtis.King@isode.com, dave.cridland@isode.com, draft-melnikov-imapext-filters@tools.ietf.org

Document writeup for draft-melnikov-imapext-filters-03.txt

(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?

  Dave Cridland. I believe this document is ready for publication.

(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?

  This is an individual submission, however some discussion has  taken place within the Lemonade WG, and privately between members.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No IPR, no concerns.

(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?

  Several active participants of the Lemonade WG expressed
      their desire to see the document published.

(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
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?

  Yes.
  The document was verified with idnits 2.06.01.

(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].

  Yes. There is one normative reference to a draft
      (draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore), for which IETF LC recently  ended
      at the end of January 2008.
  The primary impact of any changes to this document are felt likely  to be in
      examples changing.

(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 [RFC2434].  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?

  Yes. The document adds 2 elements to the registry established by
      draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore, and one IMAP4 capability.

(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?

  Yes.

(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
          The document defines a way to persistently store named  IMAP (RFC
          3501) searches on the server.  Such named searches can be
          subsequently referenced in a SEARCH or any other command  that accepts
          a search criteria as a parameter.

      Working Group Summary
          This is an individual submission, although it has been  reviewed by some
          active participants of the Lemonade WG.

      Document Quality
          The document was reviewed by a number of implementors,  both of clients and
          servers.