Protocol Action: 'IMAP4 Keyword Registry' to Proposed Standard

The IESG <> Tue, 22 December 2009 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 30) id E708B3A6A50; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:24:32 -0800 (PST)
X-idtracker: yes
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'IMAP4 Keyword Registry' to Proposed Standard
Message-Id: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:24:32 -0800
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:24:33 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'IMAP4 Keyword Registry '
   <draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group. 

The IESG contact person is Lisa Dusseault.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

Technical Summary

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

Nothing to note.  This is a pretty straightforward creation of an IANA

    Document Quality

The registry is seeded with some keywords that are already in use in
existing implementations.  Experts to be Arnt Gulbrandsen and Dave
Cridland ( and

RFC Editor Note

Note "cross client" in section 2 (across a line break) should be