[lemonade] Document Shepherd Write-up: Lemonade IMAP NOTIFY
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Thu, 17 July 2008 18:35 UTC
Return-Path: <lemonade-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lemonade-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-lemonade-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA1E3A6B3C; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: lemonade@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lemonade@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96CB3A6B3C; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xNbmvimsUWYQ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19b.inmotionhosting.com [66.117.3.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39273A6A3B; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.68.119.237] (port=60370 helo=[192.168.15.101]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1KJYKB-0007DR-BE; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:35:31 -0700
Message-Id: <635C1CCE-1336-4C99-AAB9-7D1E73B97660@standardstrack.com>
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>, iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:35:33 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: lemonade@ietf.org
Subject: [lemonade] Document Shepherd Write-up: Lemonade IMAP NOTIFY
X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments <lemonade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/lemonade>
List-Post: <mailto:lemonade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: lemonade-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: lemonade-bounces@ietf.org
DOCUMENT: The IMAP NOTIFY Extension draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-notify-06.txt (Standards Track) (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Eric Burger is the document shepherd for this document. The document is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document was extensively reviewed by the Lemonade WG. Issues raised were addressed in the latest draft. There are no concerns about the depth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No specific concerns. No IPR disclosure was filed for this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is a solid WG consensus behind the document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? IDnits 2.08.10 was used to verify the document. It reported missing Table of Content <<will fix before IETF LC>>, 2 outdated references (which can be fixed by the RFC editor. BTW, the references *were* correct when the draft was posted) and 1 missing reference, which is not a reference (it is an IMAP response code). (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes, references are properly split. There are no downward normative references. There are 3 normative references to drafts. One of them (draft- cridland-imap-context-05.txt) is in AUTH48, the other one (draft-ietf- lemonade-msgevent-05.txt) is in IESG review. And the last one is past IETF LC and should be finished shortly after Dublin (draft-daboo-imap- annotatemore-13.txt). (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section exists and is clearly defined. It contains registration of a new IMAP extension and registration of a new LIST-EXTENDED extended data item. It doesn't create new IANA registries. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The document passes Bill Fenner's ABNF Parser. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The IDLE command (defined in [RFC2177]) provides a way for the client to go into a mode where the IMAP server pushes notifications about IMAP mailstore events for the selected mailbox. However, the IDLE extension doesn't restrict or control which server events can be sent, or what information the server sends in response to each event. Also, IDLE only applies to the selected mailbox, thus requiring an additional TCP connection per mailbox. This document defines an IMAP extension that allows clients to express their preferences about unsolicited events generated by the server. The extension allows clients to only receive events they are interested in, while servers know that they don't need to go into effort of generating certain types of untagged responses. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was an early discussion about document allowing mailbox matching criteria that were too expensive to implement in servers. The current draft represents consensus among active WG members. There was a discussion about not having any events tied together. However some implementers expressed concerns about difficulty of implementing certain event combinations untied. The current text is a compromise and represents consensus among active WG members. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Multiple client developers (at least 4) expressed the desire to have this feature. Multiple server developers committed to implement the extension (at least 3) and a couple of developers already have prototype implementations. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Eric Burger is the document shepherd for this document. _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade Supplemental Web Site: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade