Skip to main content

The IMAP NOTIFY Extension
RFC 5465

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
07 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from lemonade-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify@ietf.org to (None)
2009-02-19
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2009-02-19
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5465' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-02-18
07 (System) RFC published
2008-12-10
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-12-10
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-12-10
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-12-10
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-12-09
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-12-08
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-08
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-12-08
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2008-12-08
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-12-05
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04
2008-12-04
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2008-12-04
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-12-04
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-12-04
07 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-04
07 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-12-03
07 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-12-03
07 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-12-03
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-12-03
07 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-02
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-12-02
07 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Based on the discussion that followed the Gen-ART Review by
  Brian Carpenter, I expected to see a forward reference added to
  …
[Ballot comment]
Based on the discussion that followed the Gen-ART Review by
  Brian Carpenter, I expected to see a forward reference added to
  the 'Overview and rationale' section to resolve this comment:
  >
  > I was slightly confused about the interaction between IDLE and NOTIFY
  > while reading '2.  Overview and rationale'. It was only when I reached
  > '4.  Interaction with the IDLE Command' that I understood this. It
  > would help if section 2 included a forward reference to section 4, like
  >  The interaction between IDLE and NOTIFY is described in section 4.
  > This is not a big deal, though.
2008-12-02
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-12-02
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-12-02
07 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-12-01
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-12-01
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-11-06
07 Chris Newman Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by Chris Newman
2008-11-06
07 Chris Newman State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Chris Newman
2008-11-06
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Chris Newman
2008-11-06
07 Chris Newman Ballot has been issued by Chris Newman
2008-11-06
07 Chris Newman Created "Approve" ballot
2008-10-23
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-10-22
07 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

IANA has a question:

- For Action 2, does the author want the registration in the
LIST-EXTENDED options registry or the …
IANA Last Call comments:

IANA has a question:

- For Action 2, does the author want the registration in the
LIST-EXTENDED options registry or the LIST-EXTENDED response
registry? This evaluation assumes the author intended to
use the LIST-EXTENDED response registry, but the document should
be updated to reflect this.

Action 1 (Section 10):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "IMAP 4 Capabilities" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities
sub-registry "IMAP 4 Capabilities"

Capability Name Reference
-------------------------- ------------------
NOTIFY [RFC-lemonade-imap-notify-07]


Action 2 (Section 10.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "LIST-EXTENDED response" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-list-extended

LIST-EXTENDED extended data item tag: OLDNAME
LIST-EXTENDED extended data item description: The OLDNAME extended
data item describes the old mailbox name for the mailbox identified
by the LIST response.
Which LIST-EXTENDED option(s) (and their types) causes this extended
data item to be returned (if any): none
Published specification : [RFC-lemonade-imap-notify-07], Section 5.4.
Security considerations: none
Intended usage: COMMON
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>
Owner/Change controller: iesg@ietf.org


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2008-10-09
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vidya Narayanan
2008-10-09
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vidya Narayanan
2008-10-09
07 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2008-10-09
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2008-10-09
07 Chris Newman Last Call was requested by Chris Newman
2008-10-09
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-10-09
07 (System) Last call text was added
2008-10-09
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-10-09
07 Chris Newman State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Chris Newman
2008-08-19
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-08-19
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-07.txt
2008-07-29
07 Chris Newman State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::External Party by Chris Newman
2008-07-29
07 Chris Newman
Author has indicated a draft revision is pending based on AD review.  Will
start IETF last call as soon as revision posts unless asked to …
Author has indicated a draft revision is pending based on AD review.  Will
start IETF last call as soon as revision posts unless asked to do otherwise.
2008-07-17
07 Chris Newman State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested by Chris Newman
2008-07-17
07 Chris Newman
Sent AD review to authors/shepherd, found a few issues.  Waiting for
response to determine whether to go to last call with -06 or wait for …
Sent AD review to authors/shepherd, found a few issues.  Waiting for
response to determine whether to go to last call with -06 or wait for -07.
2008-07-17
07 Chris Newman [Note]: 'Eric Burger is document shepherd' added by Chris Newman
2008-07-17
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-17
07 Cindy Morgan
(Standards Track)

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the …
(Standards Track)

(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 extensively reviewed by the Lemonade WG. Issues 
raised were addressed in the latest draft. There are no concerns about 
the 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 a solid WG consensus behind the document.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated  extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise 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 2.08.10 was used to verify the document. It reported missing 
Table of Content <<will fix before IETF LC>>, 2 outdated references 
(which can be fixed by the RFC editor. BTW, the references *were* 
correct when the draft was posted) and 1 missing reference, which is 
not a reference (it is an IMAP response code).

  (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.

There are 3 normative references to drafts. One of them (draft-
cridland-imap-context-05.txt) is in AUTH48, the other one (draft-ietf-
lemonade-msgevent-05.txt) is in IESG review. And the last one is past 
IETF LC and should be finished shortly after Dublin (draft-daboo-imap-
annotatemore-13.txt).

  (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 registration of a new IMAP extension and registration of a 
new LIST-EXTENDED extended data item. It doesn't create new IANA 
registries.

  (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?

The document passes Bill Fenner's ABNF Parser.

  (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.

The IDLE command (defined in [RFC2177]) provides a way for the client 
to go into a mode where the IMAP server pushes notifications about 
IMAP mailstore events for the selected mailbox.  However, the IDLE 
extension doesn't restrict or control which server events can be sent, 
or what information the server sends in response to each event.  Also, 
IDLE only applies to the selected mailbox, thus requiring an 
additional TCP connection per mailbox.

This document defines an IMAP extension that allows clients to express 
their preferences about unsolicited events generated by the server. 
The extension allows clients to only receive events they are 
interested in, while servers know that they don't need to go into 
effort of generating certain types of untagged responses.

        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?

There was an early discussion about document allowing mailbox matching 
criteria that were too expensive to implement in servers.  The current 
draft represents consensus among active WG members.  There was a 
discussion about not having any events tied together. However some 
implementers expressed concerns about difficulty of implementing 
certain event combinations untied. The current text is a compromise 
and represents consensus among active WG members.

        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?

Multiple client developers (at least 4) expressed the desire to have 
this feature. Multiple server developers committed to implement the 
extension (at least 3) and a couple of developers already have 
prototype implementations.

        Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is  the
            Responsible Area Director?

Eric Burger is the document shepherd for this document.
2008-07-17
07 Chris Newman Draft Added by Chris Newman in state AD is watching
2008-06-26
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-06.txt
2008-03-24
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-05.txt
2008-02-26
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-04.txt
2008-02-08
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-03.txt
2007-12-26
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-02.txt
2007-11-15
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-01.txt
2007-08-30
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-00.txt