Internet Message Access Protocol - CONVERT Extension
RFC 5259
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
20 | (System) | Notify list changed from lemonade-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lemonade-convert@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
20 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2012-08-22
|
20 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
|
2012-08-22
|
20 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2012-08-22
|
20 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Magnus Westerlund |
|
2012-08-22
|
20 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
|
2008-07-18
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2008-07-18
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5259' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2008-07-17
|
20 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2008-05-30
|
20 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2008-05-30
|
20 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2008-05-30
|
20 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2008-05-29
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2008-05-29
|
20 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2008-05-29
|
20 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2008-05-29
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2008-05-29
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2008-05-29
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2008-05-22
|
20 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Chris Newman |
|
2008-05-20
|
20 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
|
2008-05-20
|
20 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-20.txt |
|
2008-05-20
|
20 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
|
2008-05-15
|
20 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2008-05-15
|
20 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] General comment Media type parameters: What I can read no media type parameters can be included in any of the commands. That makes … [Ballot discuss] General comment Media type parameters: What I can read no media type parameters can be included in any of the commands. That makes it impossible in for example conversion to specify which profile and level for example a video conversion needs to fit into. Please explain how you can avoid handling media type parameters to deal with more specific handling of some media types. I think including parameters are especially important in the case of using Conversions to indicate capabilities |
|
2008-05-14
|
20 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] |
|
2008-05-14
|
20 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Pasi Eronen |
|
2008-05-14
|
20 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Pasi Eronen |
|
2008-05-13
|
20 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert |
|
2008-05-12
|
20 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2008-05-12
|
19 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-19.txt |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS: Document uses the term "REQUIREs" in several places. This it not an RFC2119 term. Please rephrase using MUST, REQUIRED or SHALL, … |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] I am concerned about the underspecification of the NIL conversion, and the lack of warnings about the interoperability issues. There are good reasons … [Ballot discuss] I am concerned about the underspecification of the NIL conversion, and the lack of warnings about the interoperability issues. There are good reasons for this functionality, but as currently defined it can lead to problems and this specification does not adequately describe the issues. Specifically, the main use cases that I see for NIL conversion are: 1. Defaulting to a commonly available format. You see an unrecognized media type and have no clue what it is; you ask for conversion to a commonly used media type and hope that you support it. This is fine. But the document says: Servers are REQUIRED to support "default conversion" requests. I do not know how to implement this, or how to test if a product is compliant. I would suggest Section 7.1 be amended to specify the mandatory-to-support default conversions. 2. Defaulting to a format that the server knows is suitable for the client. The document states that how the server knows this is outside the scope. This is problematic. I agree that there may be cases where this is possible, and I support the idea that the document allows this. However, I suspect that the cases where people are thinking of applying this actually have more heterogeneous clients than people might beliueve. There are mobile networks, for instance, with a lot of bundled device offerings from the service provider. However, mobile networks where other, commercially acquired devices cannot be used as well are almost extinct. For instance, even if an operator offers XXX phone to their customers, I can buy an YYY phone and insert the correct SIM card, and it works. If the provider's e-mail server starts making assumptions about what devices can do, the chances are that they will guess wrong. I would like Section 6 to contain a very clear warning about this. You may also consider adding a requirement that the client capabilities be communicated some manner (even if that manner is unspecified; the point is that guessing based on what server admin thinks the clients are is wrong). |
|
2008-05-08
|
20 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss discuss. I was wondering where the reader could go for more information on the APPEND/CONVERT attack noted in paragraph … [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss discuss. I was wondering where the reader could go for more information on the APPEND/CONVERT attack noted in paragraph 4 of section 11 (Security Considerations). Specifically, are there any actions a server can take to protectc itself beyond logging? I took a quick look at RFCs 3501 and 3502, but didn't see anything... |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] General comment Media type parameters: What I can read no media type parameters can be included in any of the commands. That makes … [Ballot discuss] General comment Media type parameters: What I can read no media type parameters can be included in any of the commands. That makes it impossible in for example conversion to specify which profile and level for example a video conversion needs to fit into. Please explain how you can avoid handling media type parameters to deal with more specific handling of some media types. I think including parameters are especially important in the case of using Conversions to indicate capabilities Section 10: conversion-data = "CONVERSION" SP quoted-from-mime-type SP quoted-to-mime-type [SP "(" transcoding-param-name *(SP transcoding-param-name) ")" This construct is missing a closing "]". As a comment it would have been easier if to determine if the ABNF was correct if one included all the missing rules, at least by "hand-waving" imports, i.e rule = <see section x.y in RFC YYYY> |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] The DISCUSS is based on the OPS-DIR review performed by David Harrington on draft-17. A number of issues were discussed on the lemonade … [Ballot discuss] The DISCUSS is based on the OPS-DIR review performed by David Harrington on draft-17. A number of issues were discussed on the lemonade list and fixed, but it looks that draft-18 did not address this issue: > Manageability is not discussed in this document. I do not know if there would be anything new required as a result of this extension, but it might be useful for an operator to be able to tell how often this extension is being used and by whom and the number of errors, to help detect abuse and performace-impacting situations. |
|
2008-05-07
|
20 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2008-05-06
|
20 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2008-05-06
|
20 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2008-05-06
|
20 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] Section 7, "IMAGE/JPG" -> "IMAGE/JPEG" |
|
2008-05-06
|
20 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
|
2008-04-30
|
20 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-30
|
20 | Chris Newman | Ballot has been issued by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-30
|
20 | Chris Newman | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2008-04-24
|
20 | Chris Newman | [Note]: 'Eric Burger is the document shepherd' added by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-24
|
20 | Chris Newman | Telechat date was changed to 2008-05-08 from by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-24
|
20 | Chris Newman | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-05-08 by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-24
|
20 | Chris Newman | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-18
|
20 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2008-04-18
|
18 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-18.txt |
|
2008-04-16
|
20 | Chris Newman | Note field has been cleared by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-16
|
20 | Chris Newman | [Note]: 'Eric Burger is document shepherd' added by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-16
|
20 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-16
|
20 | Chris Newman | Last call produced GEN-ART and OPS-DIR reviews. Expecting update from author/shepherd addressing those concerns. |
|
2008-04-16
|
20 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2008-04-15
|
20 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: Action #1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment in the "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) … IANA Last Call comments: Action #1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment in the "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) 4 Capabilities Registry" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities Capability Name Reference -------------------------- ------------------ CONVERT [RFC-ietf-lemonade-convert-17.txt] Action #2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment in the "Media Feature Tags [RFC2506]" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-feature-tags Sub-registry: "Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.features.ietf-tree (1.3.6.1.8.1) - per [RFC2506]" Decimal Name Description Reference ------- ---- ----------- --------- TBD unknown-character-replacement unknown-character-replacement [RFC-ietf-lemonade-convert-17.txt] We understand the above to be the only IANA actions for this document. |
|
2008-04-12
|
20 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
|
2008-04-03
|
20 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
|
2008-04-03
|
20 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
|
2008-04-02
|
20 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2008-04-02
|
20 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-04-02
|
20 | Chris Newman | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-02
|
20 | Chris Newman | Last Call was requested by Chris Newman |
|
2008-04-02
|
20 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2008-04-02
|
20 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2008-04-02
|
20 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2008-04-01
|
20 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2008-04-01
|
17 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-17.txt |
|
2008-03-27
|
20 | Chris Newman | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Chris Newman |
|
2008-03-27
|
20 | Chris Newman | Sent AD review comments to lemonade WG mailing list. Waiting for document revision. |
|
2008-03-19
|
20 | Chris Newman | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Chris Newman |
|
2008-03-19
|
20 | Chris Newman | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Eric Burger is the document shepherd for this document. The document is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document was reviewed by multiple active Lemonade WG participants. Larry Masinter has reviewed IANA registrations regarding validity of reuse of Media Feature Tag registry established by RFC 2506. There are no concerns about depth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No specific concerns. No IPR disclosure was filed for this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is very strong consensus behind the document. At least 6 people have reviewed the document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? IDnits 2.08.04 was used to verify the document. It reported some warnings and comments regarding undefined references, but the references are correct. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes, references are properly split. There are no downward normative references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section exists and is clearly defined. It contains the registration of an IMAP extension and registration of one media type parameter. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? ABNF in the document passes Bill Fenner's ABNF validation tool. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. CONVERT defines extensions to IMAP allowing clients to request adaptation and/or transcoding of attachments. Clients can specify the conversion details or allow servers to decide based on knowledge of client capabilities, on user or administrator preferences or its settings. This document is targeted for Proposed Standard. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? The document went through two WGLC, the first one resulted in a major document rewrite. After the second WGLC it became clear that there was no consensus on proposed conversion discovery mechanisms. The editors formally polled the WG in order to figure out if any particular approach was preferred. Results of the poll indicated rough consensus in favor of conversion discovery mechanism using the CONVERSIONS command and AVAILABLECONVERSIONS CONVERT data item. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is at least 1 existing server implementation and at least 3 other server implementations are planned. At least 2 client implementers are interested in implementing the specification. At least 6 people have reviewed the document. Posted comments were addressed in the latest revision. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Eric Burger is the document shepherd for this document. |
|
2008-03-19
|
20 | Chris Newman | Draft Added by Chris Newman in state Publication Requested |
|
2008-02-22
|
16 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-16.txt |
|
2008-02-18
|
15 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-15.txt |
|
2008-02-12
|
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-14.txt |
|
2007-12-18
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-13.txt |
|
2007-10-08
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-12.txt |
|
2007-08-28
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-11.txt |
|
2007-07-09
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-10.txt |
|
2007-06-11
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-09.txt |
|
2007-05-18
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-08.txt |
|
2007-05-16
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-07.txt |
|
2007-04-12
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-06.txt |
|
2006-10-26
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-05.txt |
|
2006-06-28
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-04.txt |
|
2006-05-30
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-03.txt |
|
2006-03-02
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-02.txt |
|
2006-01-23
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-01.txt |
|
2005-10-10
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-00.txt |