Skip to main content

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