From: IETF LEMONADE Working Group
To: OMA MWG MEM Sub Working Group
Response contact: email@example.com
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
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 off.
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
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
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
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
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
- Mar 20-24 â€“ IETF 65 plenary â€“ Dallas, TX
- Jul 10-14 â€“ IETF 66 plenary - TBD