IMAP Access to IETF Email List Archives
draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-08-26
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-08-06
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2013-07-23
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-07-23
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2013-07-23
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-07-23
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2013-07-23
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-07-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-07-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-07-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-07-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-07-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-07-23
|
08 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-07-15
|
08 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2013-07-15
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-07-15
|
08 | Robert Sparks | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-07-15
|
08 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-08.txt |
2013-06-27
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-06-27
|
07 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] In section 2: - The system must not require credentials for accessing lists with open archives. … [Ballot comment] In section 2: - The system must not require credentials for accessing lists with open archives. (However, it is acceptable for a user to access such archives while providing credentials.) I think this isn't quite right—it's really _necessary_ for a user to be able to access the archive either with a registered password or with either an anonymous login, or anonymous access. How about this: - The system must allow access to open archives with or without providing credentials. The rest of the text then nicely addresses how to not provide credentials. :) I agree with Pete's suggestion to use quotas rather than requiring the administrator to make user-specific decisions. In general, I strongly support this effort, and intend to use it extensively once it becomes available. Thank you for working on it. |
2013-06-27
|
07 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2013-06-27
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] I will switch this to "Yes" after we DISCUSS. I posted this to the IETF list to sanity check: o It must … [Ballot discuss] I will switch this to "Yes" after we DISCUSS. I posted this to the IETF list to sanity check: o It must be possible for administrators, on a per-user basis, to disable setting read/unread marks and other annotations and to delete any such marks or annotations. I don't think that's the appropriate requirement. A perfectly reasonable way to address the issue of annotations taking up too much space is to use per-user storage quotas. I would prefer not to give administrators the ability or the need to decide which users get to use annotations and which users' annotations they get to delete. And I can imagine servers for which implementing this requirement would be a significant pain. Quotas solve the problem in a much more general way. |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] I have one question: Is getting wrong or falsified copies out of this a threat? I.e., if somebody is getting a full copy … [Ballot comment] I have one question: Is getting wrong or falsified copies out of this a threat? I.e., if somebody is getting a full copy of a list, modifies the copy and uploads to some other server claiming that this is an authoritative copy? Somebody could insert "not so nice" emails in this copy and start a campaign. |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-06-25
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I remain nervous given the consequences of an error by the server operators, but since the apps folks tell me it's OK I … [Ballot comment] I remain nervous given the consequences of an error by the server operators, but since the apps folks tell me it's OK I will not block the draft. |
2013-06-25
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-06-25
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] I admit that I know little about IMAP email, but this proposal makes me nervous considering the importance of this resource to our … [Ballot discuss] I admit that I know little about IMAP email, but this proposal makes me nervous considering the importance of this resource to our operation and the implications for those relying on this archive for legal matters. I am concerned that an error in the implementation or its configuration would allow someone to corrupt the archive. I seems to me that we should only be allowing potential active access to a shadow copy of the email archive. |
2013-06-25
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-06-24
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Robert, - Excuse my ignorance regarding the annotation (not time to research this now) The interface should allow users that … [Ballot comment] Robert, - Excuse my ignorance regarding the annotation (not time to research this now) The interface should allow users that have provided credentials to each have their own read/unread marks for messages. Allowing other annotation is desirable. The implementation should consider taking advantage of the IMAP extensions for ANNOTATE [RFC5257] and METADATA [RFC5464]. Is this annotation on a per-user basis? I guess so when I see: The interface must not allow users to modify the underlying message or metadata other than the read/unread marks and annotations described above. - Discussion of this memo should take place on the ietf@ietf.org mailing list. do you still need this sentence? Or is this sentence about the solution design, referring to "and it is intended as input to a later activity for the design and development of such a service." from the charter? |
2013-06-24
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-06-24
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-06-21
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-06-21
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-06-21
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I'd love to support certs on this but as Robert points out this draft uses the authentication mechanism supported by the datatracker. When … [Ballot comment] I'd love to support certs on this but as Robert points out this draft uses the authentication mechanism supported by the datatracker. When the datatracker supports certs ... then we get certs with this. |
2013-06-21
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-06-20
|
07 | Peter Yee | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-06-20
|
07 | Peter Yee | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-06-20
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] Might be quick: Don't we need to specify what kind of credentials? I'd love to be able to give it a cert ;) |
2013-06-20
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-06-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-06-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Changed consensus to No from Unknown |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-06-27 |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | This document is ready to move to the IESG telechat, after I have reviewed all discussion to date and updated the RFC Editor notes per … This document is ready to move to the IESG telechat, after I have reviewed all discussion to date and updated the RFC Editor notes per Robert Spark's suggestion. |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-06-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-05-07
|
07 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-07.txt |
2013-05-07
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Carl Wallace. |
2013-05-07
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2013-04-13
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-04-13
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-04-12
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-04-12
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2013-04-11
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2013-04-11
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (IMAP Access to IETF Email List Archives) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (IMAP Access to IETF Email List Archives) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'IMAP Access to IETF Email List Archives' as Informational 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-05-07. 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 IETF makes heavy use of email lists to conduct its work. This often involves accessing the archived history of those email lists. Participants would like to have the ability to browse and search those archives using standard IMAP clients. This memo captures the requirements for providing a service that would allow such browsing and searching. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Last call was requested |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | New version looks good, and discussion has died down. |
2013-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::External Party |
2013-04-03
|
06 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-06.txt |
2013-03-26
|
05 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt |
2013-03-26
|
04 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-04.txt |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | AD review. Pending some input from e-mail experts. In the meantime, I think the draft is ready to move ahead. I did have a couple … AD review. Pending some input from e-mail experts. In the meantime, I think the draft is ready to move ahead. I did have a couple of observations: (1) Is there a reason why Section 3 (security considerations) doesn't point to some of the issues discussed in RFC 6778? (2) I might have placed the two references as normative instead, as they are mandatory requirements. But I'm probably thinking about normative references in a different way than the IESG has traditionally understood them... it is fine to keep them as informative. |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Document Writeup As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version … Document Writeup As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational - this is a set of requirements informing the development of a software tool. (2) 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 IETF makes heavy use of email lists to conduct its work. This often involves accessing the archived history of those email lists. Participants would like to have the ability to browse and search those archives using standard IMAP clients. This memo captures the requirements for providing a service that would allow such browsing and searching. Working Group Summary This document was developed on the ietf general list while working on the document that became RFC6778. Document Quality This document received active input from community members across several areas. Personnel Robert Sparks is the document shepherd. Jari Arkko is the responsible area director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. This very short document was formed by splitting out the IMAP related requirements from draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch (RFC6778) to make it easier to satisfy these requirements with a separate development or deployment effort. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document received better than average attention from the community during development and during the IETF last call of draft-sparks-genarea-mailarch. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. There are no portions of the document needing additional specialized review. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There are no exceptional concerns to point to. This document was created as part of the consensus building process for RFC6778 and there is an expectation in the community that it will be progressed. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (and there are no disclosure to make). (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No disclosures have been filed referencing this document. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? This document received more feedback than usual during its development on ietf general, and during the last call of the document that became RFC6778. It represents the opinions of a broad community. (10) 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 publicly available.) There has been no threat of appeal. There were some contributors who would have preferred to keep these requirements in the same document with what became RFC6778, having a stronger desire for IMAP access over web access, but the resulting references between these documents was an acceptable compromise. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document is tiny. There are no known nits to resolve. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document contains no material needing additional formal review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Both references are appropriately Informative. (14) 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 plan for their completion? There are no normative references. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downrefs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary. This document does not attempt to change the status of any existing RFC. (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). There are no actions for IANA in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. N/A (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are no such formal languages used in this document. |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Assigned to General Area |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2013-03-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | Shepherding AD changed to Jari Arkko |
2013-02-18
|
03 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-03.txt |
2012-08-22
|
02 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-02.txt |
2012-02-29
|
01 | Robert Sparks | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-01.txt |
2012-02-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-00.txt |