The IMAP METADATA Extension
RFC 5464

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'IMAP METADATA Extension' to Proposed 
         Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'IMAP METADATA Extension '
   <draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-18.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group. 

The IESG contact person is Chris Newman.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-18.txt

Technical Summary
 
   The METADATA extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol
   permits clients and servers to maintain "annotations" or "meta data"
   on IMAP servers.  It is possible to have annotations on a per-mailbox
   basis or on the server as a whole.  For example, this would allow
   comments about the purpose of a particular mailbox to be "attached"
   to that mailbox, or a "message of the day" containing server status
   information to be made available to anyone logging in to the server.
 
Working Group Summary
 
  This document is an individual submission.
  It was informally last called in the IMAPEXT WG and was discussed
  in several WG meetings.  It was also reviewed by lemonade WG
  participants for interaction with other IMAP extensions.
 
Protocol Quality
 
  This was reviewed for the IESG by Chris Newman.  This proposal has
  been discussed extensively and is leveraged by upcoming extensions
  from the lemonade WG.  There was a proposal to add multi-valued 
  attributes, but it was not accepted due to existence of a
  work-around using subordinate entries.  This area might need
  further feedback from client implementors.  There have been
  ongoing requests for this functionality for many years, but also
  ongoing concerns about the level of complexity in this proposal.
  There are already 2 server implementations of earlier versions of
  this document.  At least one client and one server vendor are
  interested in implementing the specification.  Francis Dupont
  performed GEN-ART review.

  After the first last call for this document, an effort was made
  to greatly simplify this proposal resulting in a second last
  call.