Individual A. Melnikov
Internet-Draft Isode Ltd.
Obsoletes: 2086 (if approved) June 12, 2005
Expires: December 14, 2005
IMAP4 ACL extension
draft-ietf-imapext-2086upd-07
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The ACL (Access Control List) extension (RFC 2086) of the Internet
Message Access Protocol (IMAP) permits mailbox access control lists
to be retrieved and manipulated through the IMAP protocol.
This document is a revision of RFC 2086. It defines several new
access control rights and clarifies which rights are required for
different IMAP commands.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
In all examples "/" character is used as hierarchy separator.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].
The phrase "ACL server" is just a short cut for saying "IMAP server
that supports ACL extension as defined in this document".
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Standard rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Obsolete rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Rights defined in RFC 2086 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Access control management commands and responses . . . . . . . 9
3.1 SETACL command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 DELETEACL command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 GETACL command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4 LISTRIGHTS command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5 MYRIGHTS command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6 ACL response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7 LISTRIGHTS response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.8 MYRIGHTS response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Rights required to perform different IMAP4rev1 commands . . . 13
5. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1 Additional requirements and Implementation notes . . . . . 17
5.1.1 Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.2 Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 Mapping of ACL rights to READ-WRITE and READ-ONLY
response codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A. Changes since RFC 2086 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B. Compatibility with RFC 2086 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C. Known deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
D. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 27
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
1. Introduction and Overview
The ACL (Access Control List) extension of the Internet Message
Access Protocol [IMAP4] permits mailbox access control lists to be
retrieved and manipulated through the IMAP protocol.
This document is a revision of RFC 2086 [RFC2086]. It tries to
clarify different ambiguities in RFC 2086, in particular use of UTF-8
[UTF-8] in identifiers, which rights are required for different IMAP4
commands; how READ-WRITE/READ-ONLY response codes are related to ACL.
2. Access Control
The ACL extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which
returns "ACL" as one of the supported capabilities to the CAPABILITY
command.
A server implementation conformant to this document MUST also return
rights (see below) not defined in Section 2.2 in the "RIGHTS="
capability.
An access control list is a set of <identifier,rights> pairs. An ACL
applies to a mailbox name.
Identifier is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string. The identifier "anyone" is
reserved to refer to the universal identity (all authentications,
including anonymous). All user name strings accepted by the LOGIN or
AUTHENTICATE commands to authenticate to the IMAP server are reserved
as identifiers for the corresponding users. Identifiers starting
with a dash ("-") are reserved for "negative rights", described
below. All other identifier strings are interpreted in an
implementation-defined manner.
Rights is a string listing a (possibly empty) set of alphanumeric
characters, each character listing a set of operations which is being
controlled. Lowercase letters are reserved for "standard" rights,
listed in Section 2.1. (Note that for compatibility with deployed
clients and servers uppercase rights are not allowed). The set of
standard rights can only be extended by a standards-track document.
Digits are reserved for implementation or site defined rights.
An implementation MAY tie rights together or MAY force rights to
always or never be granted to particular identifiers. For example,
in an implementation that uses UNIX mode bits, the rights "swite" are
tied, the "a" right is always granted to the owner of a mailbox and
is never granted to another user. If rights are tied in an
implementation, the implementation must be conservative in granting
rights in response to SETACL commands--unless all rights in a tied
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
set are specified, none of that set should be included in the ACL
entry for that identifier. A client can discover the set of rights
which may be granted to a given identifier in the ACL for a given
mailbox name by using the LISTRIGHTS command.
It is possible for multiple identifiers in an access control list to
apply to a given user. For example, an ACL may include rights to be
granted to the identifier matching the user, one or more
implementation-defined identifiers matching groups which include the
user, and/or the identifier "anyone". How these rights are combined
to determine the user's access is implementation-defined. An
implementation may choose, for example, to use the union of the
rights granted to the applicable identifiers. An implementation may
instead choose, for example, to only use those rights granted to the
most specific identifier present in the ACL. A client can determine
the set of rights granted to the logged-in user for a given mailbox
name by using the MYRIGHTS command.
When an identifier in an ACL starts with a dash ("-"), that indicates
that associated rights are to be removed from the identifier that is
prefixed by the dash. This is referred to as a "negative right".
This differs from DELETEACL in that a negative right is added to the
ACL, and is a part of the calculation of the rights.
Let's assume that an identifier "fred" refers to a user with login
"fred". If the identifier "-fred" is granted the "w" right, that
indicates that the "w" right is to be removed from users matching the
identifier "fred", even though the user "fred" might have the "w"
right as a consequence of some other identifier in the ACL. A
DELETEACL of "fred" simply deletes the identifier "fred" from the
ACL; it does not affect any rights that the user "fred" may get from
another entry in the ACL, in particular it doesn't affect rights
granted to the identifier "-fred".
Server implementations are not required to support "negative right"
identifiers.
2.1 Standard rights
The currently defined standard rights are (note that the list below
doesn't list all commands that use a particular right):
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
l - lookup (mailbox is visible to LIST/LSUB commands, SUBSCRIBE
mailbox)
r - read (SELECT the mailbox, perform STATUS)
s - keep seen/unseen information across sessions (set or clear
\SEEN flag via STORE, also set \SEEN during APPEND/COPY/
FETCH BODY[...])
w - write (set or clear flags other than \SEEN and \DELETED via
STORE, also set them during APPEND/COPY)
i - insert (perform APPEND, COPY into mailbox)
p - post (send mail to submission address for mailbox,
not enforced by IMAP4 itself)
k - create mailboxes (CREATE new sub-mailboxes in any
implementation-defined hierarchy, parent mailbox for the new
mailbox name in RENAME)
x - delete mailbox (DELETE mailbox, old mailbox name in RENAME)
t - delete messages (set or clear \DELETED flag via STORE, set
\DELETED flag during APPEND/COPY)
e - perform EXPUNGE and expunge as a part of CLOSE.
a - administer (perform SETACL/DELETEACL/GETACL)
2.1.1 Obsolete rights
Due to ambiguity in RFC 2086 some existing RFC 2086 server
implementations use the "c" right to control the DELETE command.
Others chose to use the "d" right to control the DELETE command. For
the former group, let's define the "create" right as union of the "k"
and "x" rights, and the "delete" right as union of the "e" and "t"
rights. For the latter group, let's define the "create" rights as a
synonym to the "k" right, and the "delete" right as union of the "e",
"t" and "x" rights.
For compatibility with RFC 2086 this section defines two virtual
rights "d" and "c".
If a client includes the "d" right in a rights list, then it MUST be
treated as if the client had included every member of the "delete"
right. (It is not an error for a client to specify both the "d"
right and one or more members of the "delete" right, but the effect
is no different than if just the "d" right or all members of the
"delete" right had been specified).
When any of the "delete" member rights is set in a list of rights,
the server MUST also include the "d" right when returning the list in
a MYRIGHTS or ACL response. This is so to enable older clients
conforming to RFC 2086 to work with newer servers. (*)
Example: C: A001 SeTacl INBOX/Drafts David lrswida
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
S: A001 OK Setacl complete
The client has specified the "d" right in the SETACL command above
and it expands to "et" on the server:
C: A002 getacl INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipslxetda David lrswideta
S: A002 OK Getacl complete
If the identifier specified in the LISTRIGHTS command can be granted
any of the "delete" member rights on a mailbox, then the server MUST
include the "d" right in the corresponding LISTRIGHTS response. (*)
If the member rights aren't tied to non-member rights, then the "d"
right is returned by itself in the LISTRIGHTS response. If any of
the member rights needs to be tied to one (or more) non-member right,
then the "d" right and all of the member rights need to be tied to
the same non-member right(s) (**).
If a client includes the "c" right in a rights list, then it MUST be
treated as if the client had included every member of the "create"
right. (It is not an error for a client to specify both the "c"
right and one or more members of the "create" right, but the effect
is no different than if just the "c" right or all members of the
"create" right had been specified).
When any of the "create" member rights is set in a list of rights,
the server MUST also include the "c" right when returning the list in
a MYRIGHTS or ACL response. This is so to enable older clients
conforming to RFC 2086 to work with newer servers. (*)
Example: C: A003 Setacl INBOX/Drafts Byron lrswikda
S: A001 OK Setacl complete
C: A002 getAcl INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipslxeta Byron lrswikcdeta
S: A002 OK Getacl complete
The client has specified the "d" right in the SETACL command above
and it expands to "et" on the server: As the client has specified
the "k" right (which is a member of the "c" right), the server also
returns the "c" right.
If the identifier specified in the LISTRIGHTS command can be granted
any of the "create" member rights on a mailbox, then the server MUST
include the "c" right in the corresponding LISTRIGHTS response. (*)
If the member rights aren't tied to non-member rights, then the "c"
right is returned by itself in the LISTRIGHTS response. If any of
the member rights needs to be tied to one (or more) non-member right,
then the "c" right and all of the member rights need to be tied to
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
the same non-member right(s) (**).
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows
lr s w i p k x t
and c=k
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr s w i p k x t c d
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows
lr s w i p k xte
and c=k
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr s w i p k xte c d
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows
lr s w i p k x te
and c=k
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr s w i p k c x te d
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows
lr swte i p k x
and c=kx
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr swted i p k x c
(*) Clients conforming to this document MUST ignore the virtual "d"
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
and "c" rights in MYRIGHTS, ACL and LISTRIGHTS responses.
(**) The IMAPEXT Working Group has debated this issue in great length
and after reviewing existing ACL implementations concluded that this
is a reasonable restriction.
2.2 Rights defined in RFC 2086
The "RIGHTS=" capability MUST NOT include any of the rights defined
in RFC 2086: "l", "r", "s", "w", "i", "p", "a", "c", "d", and the
digits ("0" .. "9").
3. Access control management commands and responses
Servers, when processing a command that has an identifier as a
parameter (i.e. any of SETACL, DELETEACL and LISTRIGHTS commands),
SHOULD first prepare the received identifier using "SASLprep" profile
[SASLprep] of the "stringprep" algorithm [Stringprep]. If the
preparation of the identifier fails or results in an empty string,
the server MUST refuse to perform the command with a BAD response.
3.1 SETACL command
Arguments: mailbox name
identifier
access right modification
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - setacl completed
NO - setacl failure: can't set acl
BAD - arguments invalid
The SETACL command changes the access control list on the specified
mailbox so that the specified identifier is granted permissions as
specified in the third argument.
The third argument is a string containing an optional plus ("+") or
minus ("-") prefix, followed by zero or more rights characters. If
the string starts with a plus, the following rights are added to any
existing rights for the identifier. If the string starts with a
minus, the following rights are removed from any existing rights for
the identifier. If the string does not start with a plus or minus,
the rights replace any existing rights for the identifier.
Note that an unrecognized right MUST cause the command to return the
BAD response. In particular, server MUST NOT silently ignore
unrecognized rights.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Example: C: A001 GETACL INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX/Drafts Fred rwipslxetad Chris lrswi
S: A001 OK Getacl complete
C: A002 SETACL INBOX/Drafts Chris +cda
S: A002 OK Setacl complete
C: A003 GETACL INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX/Drafts Fred rwipslxetad Chris lrswicdakxet
S: A003 OK Getacl complete
C: A035 SETACL INBOX/Drafts John lrQswicda
S: A035 BAD Uppercase rights are not allowed
C: A036 SETACL INBOX/Drafts John lrqswicda
S: A036 BAD The q right is not supported
3.2 DELETEACL command
Arguments: mailbox name
identifier
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - deleteacl completed
NO - deleteacl failure: can't delete acl
BAD - arguments invalid
The DELETEACL command removes any <identifier,rights> pair for the
specified identifier from the access control list for the specified
mailbox.
Example: C: B001 getacl INBOX
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipslxetad -Fred wetd $team w
S: B001 OK Getacl complete
C: B002 DeleteAcl INBOX Fred
S: B002 OK Deleteacl complete
C: B003 GETACL INBOX
S: * ACL INBOX -Fred wetd $team w
S: B003 OK Getacl complete
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
3.3 GETACL command
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: untagged responses: ACL
Result: OK - getacl completed
NO - getacl failure: can't get acl
BAD - arguments invalid
The GETACL command returns the access control list for mailbox in an
untagged ACL response.
Some implementations MAY permit multiple forms of an identifier to
reference the same IMAP account. Usually, such implementations will
have a canonical form that is stored internally. An ACL response
caused by an GETACL command MAY include a canonicalized form of the
identifier which might be different from the one used in the
corresponding SETACL command.
Example: C: A002 GETACL INBOX
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipsldexta
S: A002 OK Getacl complete
3.4 LISTRIGHTS command
Arguments: mailbox name
identifier
Data: untagged responses: LISTRIGHTS
Result: OK - listrights completed
NO - listrights failure: can't get rights list
BAD - arguments invalid
The LISTRIGHTS command takes a mailbox name and an identifier and
returns information about what rights can be granted to the
identifier in the ACL for the mailbox.
Some implementations MAY permit multiple forms of an identifier to
reference the same IMAP account. Usually, such implementations will
have a canonical form that is stored internally. A LISTRIGHTS
response caused by a LISTRIGHTS command MUST always return the same
form of an identifier as specified by the client. This is to allow
the client to correlate the response with the command.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Example: C: a001 LISTRIGHTS ~/Mail/saved smith
S: * LISTRIGHTS ~/Mail/saved smith la r swicdkxte
S: a001 OK Listrights completed
Example: C: a005 listrights archive/imap anyone
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive.imap anyone ""
l r s w i p k x t e c d a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
S: a005 Listrights successful
3.5 MYRIGHTS command
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: untagged responses: MYRIGHTS
Result: OK - myrights completed
NO - myrights failure: can't get rights
BAD - arguments invalid
The MYRIGHTS command returns the set of rights that the user has to
mailbox in an untagged MYRIGHTS reply.
Example: C: A003 MYRIGHTS INBOX
S: * MYRIGHTS INBOX rwiptsldaex
S: A003 OK Myrights complete
3.6 ACL response
Data: mailbox name
zero or more identifier rights pairs
The ACL response occurs as a result of a GETACL command. The first
string is the mailbox name for which this ACL applies. This is
followed by zero or more pairs of strings, each pair contains the
identifier for which the entry applies followed by the set of rights
that the identifier has.
Section 2.1.1 details additional server requirements related to
handling of the virtual "d" and "c" rights.
3.7 LISTRIGHTS response
Data: mailbox name
identifier
required rights
list of optional rights
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
The LISTRIGHTS response occurs as a result of a LISTRIGHTS command.
The first two strings are the mailbox name and identifier for which
this rights list applies. Following the identifier is a string
containing the (possibly empty) set of rights the identifier will
always be granted in the mailbox.
Following this are zero or more strings each containing a set of
rights the identifier can be granted in the mailbox. Rights
mentioned in the same string are tied together. The server MUST
either grant all tied rights to the identifier in the mailbox or
grant none. Section 2.1.1 details additional server requirements
related to handling of the virtual "d" and "c" rights.
The same right MUST NOT be listed more than once in the LISTRIGHTS
command.
3.8 MYRIGHTS response
Data: mailbox name
rights
The MYRIGHTS response occurs as a result of a MYRIGHTS command. The
first string is the mailbox name for which these rights apply. The
second string is the set of rights that the client has.
Section 2.1.1 details additional server requirements related to
handling of the virtual "d" and "c" rights.
4. Rights required to perform different IMAP4rev1 commands
Before executing a command an ACL compliant server MUST check which
rights are required to perform it. This section groups command by
functions they perform and list the rights required. It also gives
the detailed description of any special processing required.
For the purpose of this section the UID counterpart of a command is
considered to be the same command, e.g. both UID COPY and COPY
commands require the same set of rights.
The table below summarizes different rights or their combinations
that are required in order to perform different IMAP operations. As
it is not always possible to express complex right checking and
interactions, the description after the table should be used as the
primary reference.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|Operations\Rights | l | r | s | w | i | k | x | t | e | a |Any|Non|
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| commands in authenticated state |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LIST | + | | | | | | | | | | | |
| SUBSCRIBE | * | | | | | | | | | | | * |
| UNSUBSCRIBE | | | | | | | | | | | | + |
| LSUB | * | | | | | | | | | | | * |
|CREATE (for parent)| | | | | | + | | | | | | |
| DELETE | | | | | | | + | ? | ? | | | |
| RENAME | | | | | | + | + | | | | | |
|SELECT/EXAMINE/ | | + | | | | | | | | | | |
| STATUS | | + | | | | | | | | | | |
| SETACL/DELETEACL | | | | | | | | | | + | | |
| GETACL/LISTRIGHTS | | | | | | | | | | + | | |
| MYRIGHTS | | | | | | | | | | | + | |
| APPEND | | | ? | ? | + | | | ? | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| commands in selected state |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| COPY | | | ? | ? | + | | | ? | | | | |
| EXPUNGE/CLOSE | | | | | | | | | + | | | |
| FETCH | | | ? | | | | | | | | | |
| STORE flags | | | ? | ? | | | | ? | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Note: for all commands in the selected state the "r" is implied,
because it is required to SELECT/EXAMINE a mailbox. Servers are not
required to check presence of the "r" right once a mailbox is
successfully selected.
Legend:
+ - The right is required
* - Only one of the rights marked with * is required
(see description below)
? - The right is OPTIONAL (see description below)
"Any" - at least one of the "l", "r", "i", "k", "x", "a" rights is
required
"Non" - No rights required to perform the command
Listing and subscribing/unsubscribing mailboxes:
LIST - "l" right is required. However, unlike other commands
(e.g. SELECT) the server MUST NOT return a NO response if it
can't list a mailbox.
Note that if the user has "l" right to a mailbox "A/B", but not to
its parent mailbox "A", the LIST command should behave as if the
mailbox "A" doesn't exist, for example:
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
C: A777 LIST "" *
S: * LIST (\NoInferiors) "/" "A/B"
S: * LIST () "/" "C"
S: * LIST (\NoInferiors) "/" "C/D"
S: A777 OK LIST completed
SUBSCRIBE - "l" right is required only if the server checks for
mailbox existence when performing SUBSCRIBE.
UNSUBSCRIBE - no rights required to perform this operation.
LSUB - "l" right is required only if the server checks for mailbox
existence when performing SUBSCRIBE. However, unlike other
commands (e.g. SELECT) the server MUST NOT return a NO response
if it can't list a subscribed mailbox.
Mailbox management:
CREATE - "k" right on a nearest existing parent mailbox. When a
new mailbox is created it SHOULD inherit the ACL from the parent
mailbox (if one exists) in the defined hierarchy.
DELETE - "x" right on the mailbox. Note that some servers don't
allow to delete a non-empty mailbox. If this is the case, the
user would also need "r", "e" and "t" rights, in order to open the
mailbox and empty it.
The DELETE command MUST delete the ACL associated with the deleted
mailbox.
RENAME - Moving a mailbox from one parent to another requires the
"x" right on the mailbox itself and the "k" right for the new
parent. For example, if the user wants to rename mailbox named
"A/B/C" to "D/E", the user must have the "x" right for the mailbox
"A/B/C" and the "k" right for the mailbox "D".
The RENAME command SHOULD NOT change the ACLs on the renamed
mailbox and submailboxes.
Copying or appending messages:
Before performing a COPY/APPEND command the server MUST check if
the user has "i" right for the target mailbox. If the user
doesn't have "i" right, the operation fails. Otherwise for each
copied/appended message the server MUST check if the user has "t"
right - when the message has \Deleted flag set "s" right - when
the message has \Seen flag set "w" right for all other message
flags. Only when the user has a particular right the
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
corresponding flags are stored for the newly created message. The
server MUST NOT fail a COPY/APPEND if the user has no rights to
set a particular flag.
Example: C: A003 MYRIGHTS TargetMailbox
S: * MYRIGHTS TargetMailbox rwis
S: A003 OK Myrights complete
C: A004 FETCH 1:3 (FLAGS)
S: * 1 FETCH (FLAGS (\Draft \Deleted)
S: * 2 FETCH (FLAGS (\Answered)
S: * 3 FETCH (FLAGS ($Forwarded \Seen)
S: A004 OK Fetch Completed
C: A005 COPY 1:3 TargetMailbox
S: A005 OK Copy completed
C: A006 SELECT TargetMailbox
...
S: A006 Select Completed
Let's assume that the copied messages received message numbers
77:79.
C: A007 FETCH 77:79 (FLAGS)
S: * 77 FETCH (FLAGS (\Draft))
S: * 78 FETCH (FLAGS (\Answered))
S: * 79 FETCH (FLAGS ($Forwarded \Seen))
S: A007 OK Fetch Completed
\Deleted flag was lost on COPY, as the user has no "t" right in
the target mailbox.
If the MYRIGHTS command with the tag A003 would have returned:
S: * MYRIGHTS TargetMailbox rsti
the response from the FETCH with the tag A007 would have been:
C: A007 FETCH 77:79 (FLAGS)
S: * 77 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted))
S: * 78 FETCH (FLAGS ())
S: * 79 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen))
S: A007 OK Fetch Completed
In the latter case \Answered, $Forwarded and \Draft flags were
lost on COPY, as the user has no "w" right in the target mailbox.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Expunging the selected mailbox:
EXPUNGE - "e" right on the selected mailbox.
CLOSE - "e" right on the selected mailbox. If the server is
unable to expunge the mailbox because the user doesn't have the
"e" right, the server MUST ignore expunge request, close the
mailbox and return tagged OK response.
Fetch information about a mailbox and its messages:
SELECT/EXAMINE/STATUS - "r" right on the mailbox.
FETCH - A FETCH request that implies setting \Seen flag MUST NOT
set it, if the current user doesn't have "s" right.
Changing flags:
STORE - the server MUST check if the user has "t" right - when the
user modifies \Deleted flag "s" right - when the user modifies
\Seen flag "w" right for all other message flags. STORE operation
SHOULD NOT fail if the user has rights to modify at least one flag
specified in the STORE, as the tagged NO response to a STORE
command is not handled very well by deployed clients.
Changing ACLs:
SETACL/DELETEACL - "a" right on the mailbox.
Reading ACLs:
GETACL - "a" right on the mailbox.
MYRIGHTS - any of the following rights is required to perform the
operation: "l", "r", "i", "k", "x", "a".
LISTRIGHTS - "a" right on the mailbox.
5. Other considerations
5.1 Additional requirements and Implementation notes
5.1.1 Servers
This document defines an additional capability that is used to
announce the list of extra rights (excluding the ones defined in the
RFC 2086) supported by the server. The set of rights MUST include
"t", "e", "x" and "k". Note that the extra rights can appear in any
order.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Example: C: 1 capability
S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4REV1 STARTTLS LITERAL+
ACL RIGHTS=texk
S: 1 OK completed
Any server implementing an ACL extension MUST accurately reflect the
current user's rights in FLAGS and PERMANENTFLAGS responses.
Example: C: A142 SELECT INBOX
S: * 172 EXISTS
S: * 1 RECENT
S: * OK [UNSEEN 12] Message 12 is first unseen
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 3857529045] UIDs valid
S: * OK [UIDNEXT 4392] Predicted next UID
S: * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Seen \Answered \Flagged \*)] L
S: A142 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed
C: A143 MYRIGHTS INBOX
S: * MYRIGHTS INBOX lrwis
S: A143 OK completed
Note that in order to get better performance the client MAY pipeline
SELECT and MYRIGHTS commands:
C: A142 SELECT INBOX
C: A143 MYRIGHTS INBOX
S: * 172 EXISTS
S: * 1 RECENT
S: * OK [UNSEEN 12] Message 12 is first unseen
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 3857529045] UIDs valid
S: * OK [UIDNEXT 4392] Predicted next UID
S: * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Seen \Answered \Flagged \*)] L
S: A142 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed
S: * MYRIGHTS INBOX lrwis
S: A143 OK completed
Servers MAY cache the rights a user has on a mailbox when the mailbox
is selected, so that if a client's rights on a mailbox are changed
with SETACL or DELETEACL, commands specific to the selected state
(e.g., STORE, EXPUNGE) might not reflect the changed rights until the
mailbox is re-selected. If the server checks the rights on each
command, then it SHOULD send FLAGS and PERMANENTFLAGS responses if
they have changed. If such server detects that the user no longer
has read access to the mailbox, it MAY send an untagged BYE response
and close connection. It MAY also refuse to execute all commands
specific to the selected state until the mailbox is closed, however
server implementors should note that most clients don't handle NO
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
responses very well.
An ACL server MAY modify one or more ACL for one or more identifier
as a side effect of modifying the ACL specified in a SETACL/
DELETEACL. If the server does that it MUST send untagged ACL
response(s) to notify the client about the changes made.
An ACL server implementation MUST treat received ACL modification
commands as a possible ambiguity with respect to subsequent commands
affected by the ACL, as described in section 5.5 of [IMAP4]. Hence a
pipeline SETACL + MYRIGHTS is an ambiguity with respect to the
server, meaning that the server must execute the SETACL command to
completion before the MYRIGHTS. However, clients are permitted to
send such a pipeline.
5.1.2 Clients
The following requirement is put on clients in order to allow for
future extensibility. A client implementation that allows a user to
read and update ACLs MUST preserve unrecognized rights that it
doesn't allow the user to change. I.e., if the client
1) can read ACLs
and
2) can update ACLs
but
3) doesn't allow the user to change the rights the client doesn't
recognize, then it MUST preserve unrecognized rights.
Otherwise the client could risk unintentionally removing permissions
it doesn't understand.
5.2 Mapping of ACL rights to READ-WRITE and READ-ONLY response codes
A particular ACL server implementation MAY allow "shared multiuser
access" to some mailboxes. "Shared multiuser access" to a mailbox
means that multiple different users are able to access the same
mailbox, if they have proper access rights. "Shared multiuser
access" to the mailbox doesn't mean that the ACL for the mailbox is
currently set to allow access by multiple users. Let's denote a
"shared multiuser write access" as a "shared multiuser access" when a
user can be granted flag modification rights (any of "w", "s" or
"t").
Section 4 describes which rights are required for modifying different
flags.
If the ACL server implements some flags as shared for a mailbox
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
(i.e., the ACL for the mailbox MAY be set up so that changes to those
flags are visible to another user), let's call the set of rights
associated with these flags (as described in Section 4) for that
mailbox collectively as "shared flag rights". Note that "shared flag
rights" set MAY be different for different mailboxes.
If the server doesn't support "shared multiuser write access" to a
mailbox or doesn't implement shared flags on the mailbox, "shared
flag rights" for the mailbox is defined to be the empty set.
Example 1: Mailbox "banan" allows "shared multiuser write access" and
implements flags \Deleted, \Answered and $MDNSent as
shared flags. "Shared flag rights" for the mailbox "banan"
is a set containing flags "t" (because system flag
\Deleted requires "t" right) and "w" (because both
\Answered and $MDNSent require "w" right).
Example 2: Mailbox "apple" allows "shared multiuser write access" and
implements \Seen system flag as shared flag. "Shared flag
rights" for the mailbox "apple" contains "s" right,
because system flag \Seen requires "s" right.
Example 3: Mailbox "pear" allows "shared multiuser write access" and
implements flags \Seen, \Draft as shared flags. "Shared
flag rights" for the mailbox "apple" is a set containing
flags "s" (because system flag \Seen requires "s" right)
and "w" (because system flag \Draft requires "w" right).
The server MUST include a READ-ONLY response code in the tagged OK
response to a SELECT command if none of the following rights is
granted to the current user:
"i", "e" and "shared flag rights"*.
The server SHOULD include a READ-WRITE response code in the tagged OK
response if at least one of the "i", "e" or "shared flag rights"* is
granted to the current user.
* - Note that a future extension to this document can extend the list
of rights that causes the server to return the READ-WRITE response
code.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Example 1 (continued): The user that has "lrs" rights for the mailbox
"banan". The server returns READ-ONLY response
code on SELECT, as none of "iewt" rights is
granted to the user.
Example 2 (continued): The user that has "rit" rights for the mailbox
"apple". The server returns READ-WRITE
response code on SELECT, as the user has "i"
right.
Example 3 (continued): The user that has "rset" rights for the
mailbox "pear". The server returns READ-WRITE
response code on SELECT, as the user has "e"
and "s" rights.
6. Security Considerations
An implementation MUST make sure the ACL commands themselves do not
give information about mailboxes with appropriately restricted ACL's.
For example, when a user agent executes a GETACL command on a mailbox
that the user has no permission to LIST, the server would respond to
that request with the same error that would be used if the mailbox
did not exist, thus revealing no existence information, much less the
mailbox's ACL.
IMAP clients implementing ACL that are able to modify ACLs SHOULD
warn a user that wants to give full access (or even just the "a"
right) to the special identifier "anyone".
7. Formal Syntax
Formal syntax is defined using ABNF [ABNF], extending the ABNF rules
in section 9 of [IMAP4]. Elements not defined here can be found in
the [ABNF] and [IMAP4].
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
LOWER-ALPHA = %x61-7A ;; a-z
acl-data = "ACL" SP mailbox *(SP identifier SP
rights)
capability =/ rights-capa
;;capability is defined in [IMAP4]
command-auth =/ setacl / deleteacl / getacl /
listrights / myrights
;;command-auth is defined in [IMAP4]
deleteacl = "DELETEACL" SP mailbox SP identifier
getacl = "GETACL" SP mailbox
identifier = astring
listrights = "LISTRIGHTS" SP mailbox SP identifier
listrights-data = "LISTRIGHTS" SP mailbox SP identifier
SP rights *(SP rights)
mailbox-data =/ acl-data / listrights-data / myrights-data
;;mailbox-data is defined in [IMAP4]
mod-rights = astring
;; +rights to add, -rights to remove
;; rights to replace
myrights = "MYRIGHTS" SP mailbox
myrights-data = "MYRIGHTS" SP mailbox SP rights
new-rights = 1*LOWER-ALPHA
;; MUST include "t", "e", "x" and "k".
;; MUST NOT include standard rights listed
;; in section 2.2
rights = astring
;; only lowercase ASCII letters and digits
;; are allowed.
rights-capa = "RIGHTS=" new-rights
;; RIGHTS=... capability
setacl = "SETACL" SP mailbox SP identifier
SP mod-rights
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
8. IANA Considerations
IMAP4 capabilities are registered by publishing a standards track or
IESG approved experimental RFC. The registry is currently located
at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities
This document defines the RIGHTS= IMAP capability. IANA is requested
to add this capability to the registry.
9. Internationalization Considerations
Section 3 states requirements on servers regarding
internationalization of identifiers.
Appendix A. Changes since RFC 2086
1. Changed the charset of "identifier" from US-ASCII to UTF-8.
2. Specified that mailbox deletion is controled by the "x" right
and EXPUNGE is controlled by the "e" right.
3. Added the "t" right that controls STORE \Deleted. Redefined the
"d" right to be a macro for "e", "t" and possibly "x".
4. Added the "k" right that controls CREATE. Redefined the "c"
right to be a macro for "k" and possibly "x".
5. Specified that the "a" right also controls DELETEACL.
6. Specified that the "r" right also controls STATUS.
7. Removed the requirement to check the "r" right for CHECK, SEARCH
and FETCH, as this is required for SELECT/EXAMINE to be
successful.
8. LISTRIGHTS requires the "a" right on the mailbox (same as
SETACL).
9. Deleted "PARTIAL", this is a deprecated feature of RFC 1730.
10. Specified that the "w" right controls setting flags other than
\Seen and \Deleted on APPEND. Also specified that the "s" right
controls the \Seen flag and that the "t" right controls the
\Deleted flag.
11. Specified that SUBSCRIBE is NOT allowed with the "r" right.
12. Specified that the "l" right controls SUBSCRIBE.
13. GETACL is NOT allowed with the "r" right, even though there are
several implementations that allows that. If a user only has
"r" right, GETACL can disclose information about identifiers
existing on the mail system.
14. Clarified that RENAME requires the "k" right for the new parent
and the "x" right for the old name.
15. Added new section that describes which rights are required
and/or checked when performing various IMAP commands.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
16. Added mail client security considerations when dealing with
special identifier "anyone".
17. Clarified that negative rights are not the same as DELETEACL.
18. Added "Compatibility with RFC 2086" section.
19. Added section about mapping of ACL rights to READ-WRITE and
READ-ONLY response codes.
20. Changed BNF to ABNF.
21. Added "Implementation Notes" section.
22. Updated "References" section.
23. Added more examples.
24. Clarified when the virtual "c" and "d" rights are returned in
ACL, MYRIGHTS and LISTRIGHTS responses.
Appendix B. Compatibility with RFC 2086
This non-normative section gives guidelines how an existing RFC 2086
server implementation may be updated to comply with this document.
This document splits the "d" right into several new different rights:
"t", "e" and possibly "x" (see Section 2.1.1 for more details). The
"d" right remains for backwards-compatibility but it is a virtual
right. There are two approaches for RFC2086 server implementors to
handle the "d" right and the new rights that have replaced it:
a. "t", "e" (and possibly "x) together - almost no changes.
b. Implement separate "x", "t" and "e". Return the "d" right in a
MYRIGHTS response or an ACL response containing ACL information
when any of the "t", "e" (and "x") is granted.
In a similar manner this document splits the "c" right into several
new different rights: "k" and possibly "x" (see Section 2.1.1 for
more details). The "c" right remains for backwards-compatibility but
it is a virtual right. Again, RFC2086 server implementors can choose
to tie rights or to implement separate rights, as described above.
Also check Sections Section 5.1.1 and Section 5.1.2, as well as the
Appendix A to see other changes required. Server implementors should
check which rights are required to invoke different IMAP4 commands as
described in Section 4.
Appendix C. Known deficiencies
This specification has some known deficiencies including:
1. This is inadequate to provide complete read-write access to
mailboxes protected by Unix-style rights bits because there is no
equivalent to "chown" and "chgrp" commands nor is there a good
way to discover such limitations are present.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
2. Because this extension leaves the specific semantics of how
rights are combined by the server as implementation defined, the
ability to build a user-friendly interface is limited.
3. Users, groups, and special identifiers (e.g. anyone) exist in the
same namespace.
The work-in-progress "ACL2" extension is intended to redesign this
extension to address these deficiencies without the constraint of
backwards-compatibility and may eventually supercede this facility.
However, RFC 2086 is deployed in multiple implementations so this
intermediate step which fixes the straightforward deficiencies in a
backwards compatible fashion is considered worthwhile.
Appendix D. Acknowledgments
This document is a revision of the RFC 2086 written by John G. Myers.
Editor appreciates comments received from Mark Crispin, Chris Newman,
Cyrus Daboo, John G. Myers, Dave Cridland, Ken Murchison, Steve Hole,
Vladimir Butenko, Larry Greenfield, Robert Siemborski, Harrie
Hazewinkel, Philip Guenther, Brian Candler, Curtis King, Lyndon
Nerenberg, Lisa Dusseault, Arnt Gulbrandsen and other participants of
the IMAPEXT working group.
10. References
10.1 Normative References
[KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[Stringprep]
Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
December 2002.
[SASLprep]
Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User Names
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.
10.2 Informative References
[RFC2086] Myers, J., "IMAP4 ACL extension", RFC 2086, January 1997.
Author's Address
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Ltd.
5 Castle Business Village
36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
GB
Email: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IMAP ACL June 2005
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Melnikov Expires December 14, 2005 [Page 28]
