Skip to main content

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, …
[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS: Document uses the term "REQUIREs" in several places. This it
  not an RFC2119 term. Please rephrase using MUST, REQUIRED or SHALL,
  which are the three RFC2119 terms for the "mandatory" requirement
  level.
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