datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Liaison Statement: Update on LEMONADE activity - March 2008

Submission Date: 2008-03-21
From: IETF LEMONADE WG (Glenn Parsons)
To: OMA MEM (OMA-LIAISON@mail.openmobilealliance.org)
Cc:lemonade@ietf.org
dean.willis@softarmor.com
Chris.Newman@Sun.COM
Response Contact: lemonade@ietf.org
Technical Contact: Gparsons@nortel.com
eburger@bea.com
Purpose: For action
Deadline: 2008-06-01 Action Taken
Attachments: text of liaison
Mapping OMA MEM RD to LEMONADE
Body:
From: IETF LEMONADE Working Group
To: OMA MWG MEM Sub Working Group
Date: March 2008
Title: Update on LEMONADE activity	
Response contact:  lemonade@ietf.org
Purpose:  For Action


The IETF LEMONADE working group (WG) would like to update you on our
progress.  Of note is that we have numerous RFCs that have already been
approved and published:

RFC 4467 – IMAP URL Authorization (URLAUTH)
RFC 4468 – IMAP BURL 
RFC 4469 – IMAP CATENATE 
RFC 4550 – LEMONADE Profile
RFC 4551 – IMAP Conditional STORE (CONDSTORE) 
RFC 4731 – IMAP ESEARCH 
RFC 4865 – SMTP future delivery
RFC 4978 – IMAP COMPRESS
RFC 5032 – IMAP SEARCH WITHIN
RFC 5092 – IMAP URL
RFC 5161 – IMAP ENABLE
RFC 5162 – IMAP Quick Mailbox Resync

Furthermore, the following documents have been essentially completed
and are in the process of formal approval and publication:
 
draft-ietf-lemonade-deployments (for LEMONADE-compliant Mobile Email) 

draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent (canonical list of events)
draft-ietf-lemonade-convert (IMAP CONVERT)

In addition, we are nearing completion on the rest of the documents in
discussion in the WG.  This includes IMAP CONTEXT, IMAP SIEVE, IMAP
streaming, IMAP notifications, LEMONADE architecture and LEMONADE
Profile-bis. We have a last call schedule in place and intend to
conclude this work by May 2008.

During our IETF 71 plenary meeting, we reviewed the OMA MEM
Requirements Document (RD).  This exercise was useful as a follow-up to
the draft OMA MEM RD review we conducted in September 2005.  We have
concluded that LEMONADE generally meets the requirements you have set. 
There are, of course, some requirements that we believe are out of
scope from a LEMONADE protocol perspective, and others that are simply
implementation specific details.  As well, there are some requirements
that are not clear to us and we would appreciate some clarification to
understand if it is applicable to LEMONADE.  We have attached our
detailed review to this liaison for your comment.  

Finally, as you know, the work of the LEMONADE WG is focused on a set
of extensions to IMAP and ESMTP to support mobile email.  This set will
be succinctly summarized in the LEMONADE profile
(draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis).  We understand that the OMA TS will
normatively reference the LEMONADE profile for the MEM protocol.  In
order to help us understand your usage better and provide
comment/input, we would appreciate an update on the OMA MEM TS for
LEMONADE.  

If possible, it would be useful to hold a joint OMA MEM / IETF LEMONADE
workshop to close on clarifications we are looking for with the OMA MEM
RD (and AD) and also to assist you with the LEMONADE details form the
OMA MEM TS.

Up-to-date information on LEMONADE Internet-Drafts and RFCs can always
be found at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lemonade/ 
with additional information on our charter page
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.html 

Finally, as information, the next meetings of the IETF LEMONADE WG
are:
-	Apr/May/Jun – interim (if necessary) to deal with comments
-	July 28 – August 1 – IETF 72 plenary – Dublin