Status of draft-melnikov-imap-mdn-05.txt

ned+imapext@INNOSOFT.COM Fri, 13 December 2002 05:06 UTC

Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBD561Y15154 for ietf-imapext-bks; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBD55wE15146 for <ietf-imapext@imc.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01KPXRRR1EWW001ZTY@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf-imapext@imc.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:58:28 -0800
From: ned+imapext@INNOSOFT.COM
Subject: Status of draft-melnikov-imap-mdn-05.txt
To: ietf-imapext@imc.org, Alexey Melnikov <mel@messagingdirect.com>
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, paf@cisco.com
Message-id: <01KPYIOAI3YU001ZTY@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

The IESG approved this document today. However, the IESG elected to approve
this as a proposed standard rather than a BCP.

The reason for this change is that although the document doesn't modify the
IMAP protocol per se it does change the client semantics of a particular
protocol element: The $MDNSent keyword. The IESG felt that this is sufficient
to justify placing the document on the standards track rather than making it a
BCP. The IESG also noted that it is entirely possible for there to be multiple
implementations and to test interoperability of those implementations.

If there are any objections to this status change I'd like to hear about them,
preferably before the annoucement is sent a few days from now.

				Ned

P.S. The primary reason for this note explicitly noting this change is that a
recent, similar change to the status of a document took place in the FAX
working group and was unremarked at the time but caused significant confusion
later. I'd like to avoid that in this case.