Skip to main content

Internet Email to Support Diverse Service Environments (Lemonade) Profile
RFC 4550

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
07 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2018-12-20
07 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a profile (a set of required extensions, restrictions, and usage modes) of the …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a profile (a set of required extensions, restrictions, and usage modes) of the IMAP and mail submission protocols. This profile allows clients (especially those that are constrained in memory, bandwidth, processing power, or other areas) to efficiently use IMAP and Submission to access and submit mail. This includes the ability to forward received mail without needing to download and upload the mail, to optimize submission, and to efficiently resynchronize in case of loss of connectivity with the server.

The Internet Email to Support Diverse Service Environments (Lemonade) profile relies upon extensions to IMAP and Mail Submission protocols; specifically, the URLAUTH and CATENATE IMAP protocol (RFC 3501) extensions and the BURL extension to the SUBMIT protocol (RFC 4409). [STANDARDS-TRACK]')
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from gparsons@nortel.com, eburger@brooktrout.com to (None)
2006-06-30
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2006-06-30
07 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4550' added by Amy Vezza
2006-06-15
07 (System) RFC published
2006-02-08
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-02-06
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-02-06
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-02-06
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-02-03
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-02-02
2006-02-02
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-02-02
07 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2006-02-02
07 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2006-02-02
07 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2006-02-01
07 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2006-02-01
07 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2006-02-01
07 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2006-02-01
07 Michelle Cotton IANA Commments:
As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand there to be NO IANA Actions for this document.
2006-01-31
07 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot comment]
There shouldn't be any citations in the Abstract.
2006-01-30
07 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
Please change "mandatory to implement" to "mandatory-to-implement"
  throughout the document.

  Please change "TLS protected" to "TLS-protected" throughout the
  document.
2006-01-30
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2006-01-28
07 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Brian Carpenter
2006-01-28
07 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
I won't make these Gen-ART review comments from Spencer Dawkins a DISCUSS,
but they both deserve a moment's thought.

In Section 3, "Lemonade …
[Ballot comment]
I won't make these Gen-ART review comments from Spencer Dawkins a DISCUSS,
but they both deserve a moment's thought.

In Section 3, "Lemonade clients SHOULD take advantage of these features." doesn't look like a normative/2119 "SHOULD".

BC: agreed, I would change it to lower case.

In section 3.3, I suppose the SHOULD NOT in

  A LEMONADE compliant client SHOULD use message size declaration. In
  particular it SHOULD NOT send a message to a mail submission server,
  if the client knows that the message exceeds the maximal message size
  advertised by the submission server.

is OK, but

BC: well, I don't see why it would ever be OK to send a message that's too long. Maybe this should just be MUST NOT.
2006-01-28
07 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-01-24
07 Ted Hardie State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Ted Hardie
2006-01-24
07 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2006-01-20
07 Ted Hardie Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-02-02 by Ted Hardie
2006-01-20
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-07.txt
2006-01-11
07 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie
2006-01-11
07 Ted Hardie Ballot has been issued by Ted Hardie
2006-01-11
07 Ted Hardie Created "Approve" ballot
2006-01-06
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2005-12-15
07 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2005-12-15
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2005-12-15
07 Ted Hardie

LEMONADE PROTO write-up
----------------------

Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do they
believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward …

LEMONADE PROTO write-up
----------------------

Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do they
believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG for
publication?

Yes.

Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key
non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

Yes, No.

Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you
believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you
are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or whether there
really is a need for it, etc., but at the same time these issues have
been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it wishes to advance
the document anyway.

The only issue is that the work has not finished.  However, the group
wants to document this stage of the work now.  And update the document
at a later point when the next stage of work matures.

How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent
the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent,
or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG is fully behind this document.  There is no silent dissent.

Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.

Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the ID
nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.  All is fine except a couple minor long lines in the current draft.

Does the document a) split references into normative/informative, and b)
are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (Note: the RFC
editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will
delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as
RFCs.)

Yes, yes but they are all in the RFC Editor's Queue.

For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement
includes a write-up section with the following sections:

Technical Summary

The LEMONADE profile is a profile (a set of required extensions,
restrictions and usage modes) of the IMAP and mail submission protocols.
This profile allows clients (especially those that are constrained in
memory, bandwidth, processing power, or other areas) to efficiently use
IMAP and Submission to access and submit mail.  This includes the
ability to forward received mail without needing to download and upload
the mail, to optimize submission and to
efficiently resynchronize in case of loss of connectivity with the
server.

Working Group Summary

The IETF LEMONADE WG has done considerable work on developing protocols
to support features to improve email access in diverse environments.
This includes various efficiency improvements to the base IMAP and SMTP
protocols that have been documented in separate documents.  A notable
addition is a mechanism to forward a message without downloading it to
the client.  The profile explains this and other improvements along with
examples.  To aid interoperability, this document indicates which IMAP &
SMTP extensions are mandatory.  Though work is continuing on additional
improvements, there is consensus in the WG to progress the LEMONADE
profile to IETF last call immediately.

Protocol Quality

The profile lists several new features to IMAP  and SMTP that have
already been implemented by several vendors.  This has already resulted
in changes to the spec to clarify the protocols.  In addition it has
resulted in removing some other new protocols that are not fully baked
at this time and will be included in a later revision of this document
(e.g., recycle at proposed standard RFC).
2005-12-15
07 Ted Hardie State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ted Hardie
2005-12-15
07 Ted Hardie Last Call was requested by Ted Hardie
2005-12-15
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2005-12-15
07 (System) Last call text was added
2005-12-15
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2005-12-15
07 Ted Hardie State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Ted Hardie
2005-12-15
07 Ted Hardie Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2005-12-01
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-06.txt
2005-10-18
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-05.txt
2005-09-27
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-04.txt
2005-09-20
07 Ted Hardie Draft Added by Ted Hardie in state AD is watching
2005-07-19
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-03.txt
2005-04-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-02.txt
2005-02-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-01.txt
2004-07-13
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-00.txt