Internet Message Store Events
RFC 5423
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 'One of the missing features in the existing Internet mail and messaging standards is a facility … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'One of the missing features in the existing Internet mail and messaging standards is a facility for server-to-server and server-to- client event notifications related to message store events. As the scope of Internet mail expands to support more diverse media (such as voice mail) and devices (such as cell phones) and to provide rich interactions with other services (such as web portals and legal compliance systems), the need for an interoperable notification system increases. This document attempts to enumerate the types of events that interest real-world consumers of such a system. This document describes events and event parameters that are useful for several cases, including notification to administrative systems and end users. This is not intended as a replacement for a message access facility such as IMAP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]') |
2015-10-14
|
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from lemonade-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
2009-03-27
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2009-03-27
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5423' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-03-27
|
07 | (System) | RFC published |
2008-12-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2008-12-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2008-12-17
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2008-12-05
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2008-11-25
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-11-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-11-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-11-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2008-11-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-11-10
|
07 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-11-07
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-11-05
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2008-11-02
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-11-02
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-07.txt |
2008-08-15
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-08-14 |
2008-08-14
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2008-08-14
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert |
2008-08-14
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-08-14
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Given that the defined attributes do not contain interesting fields such as Subject or From, does it mean that this facility is only … [Ballot comment] Given that the defined attributes do not contain interesting fields such as Subject or From, does it mean that this facility is only useful if you (a) intend to fetch every new message anyway or (b) always supply message content? I'd like to understand why the design is like this. |
2008-08-14
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-08-12
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-08-12
|
07 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-08-11
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] In general, a well-written document; however, there are couple of places that would benefit from some clarification: The level of detail in the … [Ballot discuss] In general, a well-written document; however, there are couple of places that would benefit from some clarification: The level of detail in the parameter descriptions (Section 5) varies a lot -- some specify an exact character/octet string encoding, others just the information on general level. Section 5 should probably explicitly say which of these are intended to be precise specifications, and for which parameters, the exact encoding is left to future documents (specifying the notification system protocols). (Also noted in Richard Barnes's SecDir review) Section 4.4: the terms "subscribe" and "subscription" are used with many different meanings in email contexts (e.g. mailing list subscription, IMAP subscribe, event subscription); the text should explicitly say which of these is meant for MailboxSubscribe etc. (this is probably obvious to the authors, but not to me :) Section 5, "timestamp": is this when the notification was generated, or when the event described by the notification occured? (presumably, in some systems these might be separated by quite a bit) Section 5, "user": what about when SASL is not used? ("user" would also make sense for e.g. HTTP access.) |
2008-08-11
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-08-11
|
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-08-11
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] The LEMONADE charter says "The IAB is currently working on the specification of general guidelines and requirements for notification services. Once … [Ballot comment] The LEMONADE charter says "The IAB is currently working on the specification of general guidelines and requirements for notification services. Once complete this work will be used as input to item 4 above." (Work item 4 is on notifications.) Has this IAB document materialized? The document doesn't refer to it at least, and the tracker has no shepherd writeup where I could find out about this. Section 4.2., paragraph 7: > The flagNames MUST not include \Recent. Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is what you mean). Section 5., paragraph 10: > The IP address of the message store access client which performed > the action which triggered the notification. Changing "the IP address" to "the IPv4 or IPv6 address" would make it clearer that both are allowed. Section 9.1., paragraph 3: > [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an > IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, > October 1998. Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) |
2008-08-11
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS-DISCUSS: I'd like to understand why this document is going for PS rather than, say, Informational. I see little in here that … [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS-DISCUSS: I'd like to understand why this document is going for PS rather than, say, Informational. I see little in here that is actually implementable; much of it is very high-level. The document itself says "As a first step towards building a notification system, this document attempts to enumerate the core events that real-world customers demand." That doesn't sound much like what I'd expect a PS in this space to say. Another example: "This document does not indicate which event parameters are mandatory or optional. That is done in documents which specify specific message formats or bindings to a notification system." |
2008-08-11
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-07-18
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2008-07-18
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2008-07-17
|
07 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-07-14
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-08-14 by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-07-14
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-07-14
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault |
2008-07-14
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | Ballot has been issued by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-07-14
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-07-10
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-07-10
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-06.txt |
2008-07-02
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-05-02
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Richard Barnes. |
2008-05-01
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | Security review from Richard Barnes arrived Apr 28 -- needs reply, possibly no changes required |
2008-04-23
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-04-18
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a registry called "Internet Message Store Events" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Using … IANA Last Call comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a registry called "Internet Message Store Events" at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Using IANA Considerations [RFC2434] terminology, entries which do not start with "vnd." are allocated by IETF Consensus, while those starting with "vnd." are allocated First Come First Served. Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a sub-registry called "Event Names" in the "Internet Message Store Events" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: Event Name Reference --------------- ----------- FlagsClear [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] FlagsSet [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] Login [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] Logout [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MailboxCreate [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MailboxDelete [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MailboxRename [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MailboxSubscribe [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MailboxUnSubscribe [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MessageAppend [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MessageExpire [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MessageExpunge [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MessageNew [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MessageRead [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] MessageTrash [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] QuotaChange [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] QuotaExceeded [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] QuotaWithin [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] Action 3: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a sub-registry called "Event Parameters" in the "Internet Message Store Events" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Initial contents of this sub-registry will be: Parameter Reference --------------- ----------- admin [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] bodyStructure [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] clientIP [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] clientPort [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] diskQuota [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] diskUsed [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] envelope [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] flagNames [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] mailboxID [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] maxMessages [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] messageContent [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] messageSize [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] messages [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] modseq [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] oldMailboxID [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] pid [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] process [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] serverFQDN [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] service [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] tags [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] timestamp [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] uidnext [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] uidset [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] uri [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] user [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2008-04-12
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2008-04-12
|
07 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2008-04-09
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-04-09
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-04-09
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-04-09
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-04-09
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-04-09
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-04-09
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-04-03
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-03-12
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | Draft Added by Lisa Dusseault in state Publication Requested |
2008-01-09
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-05.txt |
2007-07-09
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-04.txt |
2007-07-08
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-03.txt |
2007-05-09
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-02.txt |
2007-03-05
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-01.txt |
2006-06-07
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-00.txt |