IMAP4 Keyword Registry
RFC 5788
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
10 | (System) | Notify list changed from alexey.melnikov@isode.com, dave.cridland@isode.com, barryleiba@computer.org to barryleiba@computer.org |
|
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
|
2010-03-10
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-10
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5788' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-10
|
10 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2009-12-24
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2009-12-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2009-12-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2009-12-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2009-12-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2009-12-22
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2009-12-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-12-22
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2009-12-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2009-12-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2009-12-22
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-12-17
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-12-17
|
10 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-12-17
|
10 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2009-12-17
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-12-17
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-12-16
|
10 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2009-12-15
|
10 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-12-15
|
10 | (System) | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system |
|
2009-12-11
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-10.txt |
|
2009-12-07
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-09.txt |
|
2009-12-04
|
10 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03 |
|
2009-12-03
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-08.txt |
|
2009-12-02
|
10 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-12-02
|
10 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 3., paragraph 21: > Registration of an IMAP keyword intended for common use (whether or > not they use the … [Ballot comment] Section 3., paragraph 21: > Registration of an IMAP keyword intended for common use (whether or > not they use the "$" prefix) requires Expert Review [RFC5226]. After > allowing for at least two weeks for community input on the designated > mailing list (as described above), the expert will determine the > appropriateness of the registration request and either approve or > disapprove the request with notice to the requestor, the mailing > list, and IANA. Any refusal must come with a clear explanation. Is list input & the required delay really necessary? Don't we trust the experts to do the right thing? Section 3., paragraph 22: > The IESG appoints one or more Expert Reviewer, one of which is > designated as the primary Expert Reviewer. IMAP keywords intended > for common use SHOULD be standardized in IETF Review [RFC5226] > documents. What does "primary" mean? Nowhere else in this document is described what sets this experts apart from the others. (Suggest to simply remove this.) Section 3.2., paragraph 1: > Once an IMAP keyword registration has been published by IANA, the > author may request a change to its definition. Who is the "author"? Do you mean the owner? Section 3.2., paragraph 4: > IMAP keyword registrations may not be deleted; keywords which are no > longer believed appropriate for use can be declared OBSOLETE by a > change to their "intended usage" field. I believe HISTORIC would be more correct (whenever we say "obsolete" we usually saw obsoleted by *what*). |
|
2009-12-02
|
10 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] Section 3., paragraph 27: > However such review is still encouraged. Should the review be > requested by registrant or at … [Ballot discuss] Section 3., paragraph 27: > However such review is still encouraged. Should the review be > requested by registrant or at IANA's sole discretion, the Expert > Reviewer should encourage vendors to avoid defining similar but > incompatible values and instead agree on a single IMAP keyword for > common use. DISCUSS: So either it's FCFS or it's not. Saying that it is, but then allowing an expert to say "but this one I'll review" and then reject it is *not* FCFS. It's expert review. Section 3.1., paragraph 2: > Submitters of comments may, after a reasonable attempt to contact the > owner and after soliciting comments on the IMAP mailing list, request > IANA to attach their comment to the IMAP keyword registration itself > by sending mail to <iana@iana.org>. At IANA sole discretion, IANA > may attach the comment to the IMAP keyword registration. DISCUSS: I don't understand what the intent is here. The way I read this, a person can ask IANA to add a note to a registry entry and IANA may decide to do this? Why do we need a process for this? The IESG for example can already do this, and if the community wants this to happen they can ask us to do so. |
|
2009-12-02
|
10 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-12-02
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2009-12-02
|
10 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2009-12-02
|
10 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-12-01
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-12-01
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-12-01
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Section 3 > Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix. > (Note that this is a SHOULD because some … [Ballot comment] Section 3 > Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix. > (Note that this is a SHOULD because some of the commonly used IMAP > keywords in widespread use don't follow this convention.) As discussed, you could insist that all new keywords intended for common use MUST start with the "$" prefix as a definition of the registry. ======= Nits --- Through-out "IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ? --- Section 2 "cross client interoperability" What have the clients to be cross about? Try "cross-client" |
|
2009-12-01
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] |
|
2009-12-01
|
10 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2009-12-01
|
10 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
|
2009-11-30
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Nits --- Through-out "IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ? --- Section 2 "cross client interoperability" What have the clients to be cross about? … [Ballot comment] Nits --- Through-out "IMAP Keywords" of "IMAP keywords" ? --- Section 2 "cross client interoperability" What have the clients to be cross about? Try "cross-client" |
|
2009-11-30
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] Section 3 > Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix. > (Note that this is a SHOULD because some … [Ballot discuss] Section 3 > Keywords intended for common use SHOULD start with the "$" prefix. > (Note that this is a SHOULD because some of the commonly used IMAP > keywords in widespread use don't follow this convention.) You could insist that all new keywords intended for common use MUST start with the "$" prefix. |
|
2009-11-30
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-11-19
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | Ballot has been issued by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03 by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-11-18
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-07.txt |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' added by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | State Change Notice email list have been change to alexey.melnikov@isode.com, dave.cridland@isode.com, barryleiba@computer.org from alexey.melnikov@isode.com, dave.cridland@isode.com, draft-melnikov-imap-keywords@tools.ietf.org |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | Note field has been cleared by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-11-18
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' added by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-11-16
|
10 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-11-11
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sam Weiler. |
|
2009-11-09
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Registry Name: IMAP Keywords Registration procedures: Expert Review for common use keywords (starting with $) First Come First Serve for vendor specific keywords … IANA comments: Registry Name: IMAP Keywords Registration procedures: Expert Review for common use keywords (starting with $) First Come First Serve for vendor specific keywords (starting with vnd.) The initial content of the registry will be: Keyword Type Usage Reference $MDNSent SHARED COMMON [RFC3503] $Forwarded BOTH COMMON [RFC5550] $SubmitPending SHARED COMMON [RFC5550] $Submitted SHARED COMMON [RFC5550] |
|
2009-10-22
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
|
2009-10-22
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
|
2009-10-22
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | This is to request the publication of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06, an individual submission, as a Standards-Track RFC (Proposed Standard). (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for … This is to request the publication of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06, an individual submission, as a Standards-Track RFC (Proposed Standard). (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? Barry Leiba is the document shepherd. I have reviewed this version, and am satisfied that it's ready. (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? The document has adequate review, as an individual submission, by IMAP experts. I have no concerns. (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? I have 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. I have no concerns. There is no IPR involved. (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 no working group involved, but consensus of a good section of the IMAP community is behind it. (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 the Internet-Drafts Checklist 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? The only issue is that the document needs a pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. The authors are holding that in an -07 version until after IETF last call, so as not to disrupt the last-call process. (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]. All references are properly separated and labelled. There are no downward 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 [RFC5226]. 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 whole point of this document is IANA considerations, and the requirements are clearly identified throughout. I have discussed expert reviewers with the Area Directors. (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? There is no formal language in this document. (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. Over the years, some IMAP keywords (client-defined flags) have become de-facto standard, with some specific semantics associated with them. In some cases, different client implementors have defined and used keywords with different names, but the same semantics. Some server implementors decided to map such keywords to each other automatically in order to improve cross client interoperability. In other cases, the same keywords have been used with different semantics, causing interoperability problems. This document attempts to prevent further incompatible uses of IMAP keywords by establishing an IANA registry for IMAP keywords, and by allocating a special prefix for standardized keywords. 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? Nothing to note. This is a pretty straightforward creation of an IANA registry. 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? The registry is seeded with some keywords that are already in use in existing implementations. --------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
2009-10-19
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-10-19
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-10-19
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-10-19
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-10-19
|
10 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-10-19
|
10 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-10-19
|
10 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-10-16
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06.txt |
|
2009-10-15
|
10 | Lisa Dusseault | Draft Added by Lisa Dusseault in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-10-10
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-05.txt |
|
2009-07-13
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-04.txt |
|
2006-03-05
|
10 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2005-08-22
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-03.txt |
|
2003-09-08
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-02.txt |
|
2003-06-30
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-01.txt |
|
2002-06-21
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-00.txt |