From: IETF LEMONADE Working Group
To: OMA MWG MEM Sub Working Group
Response contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Purpose: For Action
Deadline: March 13, 2006
The LEMONADE working group (WG) would like to thank the OMA Mobile Email Sub
Working Group for your latest liaison.
Our previous liaison indicated that we have proposed a realization of the OMA
MEM architecture using IETF protocols and that we documented this in an
Internet Draft (see draft-ietf-lemonade-oma-mem-realization-00.txt). The
purpose of the WG Internet Draft is to provide a working document in the IETF
to ensure that our work addresses the OMA MEM required features within our
scope and to further affirm its status as a WG view. As is the case with some
other WG documents in the LEMONADE WG, there is currently no intent to
progress this draft to an RFC.
Further, there is no intent to publish the OMA MEM RD, AD or TS in IETF.
As we have indicated before, the LEMONADE WG is working on a set of extensions
to IMAP and ESMTP to support mobile email. This set will be succinctly
described in the LEMONADE profile (draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis). This
will cover the protocol exchanged on interface ME-2 (ME-2a and ME-2b) as well
as the notifications aspects of ME-3, referring to the interfaces described in
the OMA MEM AD. The OMA TS can normatively reference the LEMONADE profile for
these interface aspects and for the MEM protocol. In addition, we are also
considering a best practices document on deployment considerations that may be
useful to OMA MEM.
We appreciate your response to the questions that we had asked in our previous
liaison. We have a number of follow-on comments/questions:
1. We will support signed notifications but will add the ability to turn it
2. OMA STI is currently being used in CONVERT (draft-ietf-lemonade-convert).
However we are concerned with the large number of optional parameters. We
would prefer a shorter finite mandatory set (that is extensible). What advice
can you offer on a shorter set?
3. We will be providing â€˜Manage SIEVE Protocolâ€™ to manage the filters.
Additional methods (such as XDMS) could be used as well by OMA if desired.
But a complete set of remote management functionality will be made available
by the LEMONADE work as part of the LEMONADE profile.
4. We are evaluating where in our protocols delays may play a role. We note
that there may be a tradeoff in mobile phones on battery life vs delay. What
delay aspects are of concern to the OMA â€“ is it roundtrip, network or
service level? Clearly our design will aim at minimizing delays that are
within our control. We would like to make sure we understand the aspect of
particular interest to OMA MEM.
5. We are aware of the limitations for mutual authentication on mobile
devices. We apologize for the confusion in our previous response. Mutual
authentication is a feature provided by SASL (RFC 2222) framework, or SASL +
TLS. However the use of TLS is not required, and this could just be handled by
SASL mechanisms which are optimized for mobile phone use.
6. Message recall is possible within the submit (i.e., administrative)
domain. We indicated that we could design protocol for this based on MSGTRK
(RFC 3888). However, in the general end-to-end Internet Mail case it is
practically impossible to design a message recall solution that will reliably
work. We encourage OMA MEM WG to consider that reality and verify that recall
is still a desired target mechanisms for OMA MEM
We would like to draw your attention to the fact that LEMONADE has wrapped up
the first phase of its work. We are currently working on finalizing the
content of Profile bis. Additional input on details required to meet OMA
requirements have been reviewed, and most have become WG documents. The
timeline would likely result in conclusion in early 2006.
Up-to-date information on LEMONADE Internet-Drafts and RFCs can always be
found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.html with more
detail tracked on the supplemental site.
Finally, as information, the next meetings of the IETF LEMONADE WG are:
- Mar 20-24 â€“ IETF 65 plenary â€“ Dallas, TX
- Jul 10-14 â€“ IETF 66 plenary - TBD