[lemonade] [Inquiry #94503] AutoReply: Updated Liaison Statement, "Update on LEMONADE activity"

["Liaison Statements via RT" <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

This message has been automatically generated in response to the
creation of a ticket regarding:
	"Updated Liaison Statement, "Update on LEMONADE activity"", 
a summary of which appears below.

There is no need to reply to this message right now.  Your ticket has been
assigned an ID of [Inquiry #94503] in the queue: Liaison-Statements.

Please include the string:

         [Inquiry #94503]

in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. To do so, 
you may reply to this message.

                        Thank you,
                        [e-mail]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Update on LEMONADE activity
Submission Date: 2007-03-29
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=309 
Please reply by 2007-05-15

From: Glenn Parsons(IETF LEMONADE WG) <[e-mail]>
To: OMA MEM([e-mail]))
Cc: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Reponse Contact: [e-mail]
Technical Contact: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Purpose: For action 
Body: 
The IETF LEMONADE working group (WG) would like to update you on our 
progress.  Of note is that we have several 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 

Furthermore, the following documents have been essentially completed 
and are in the process of formal approval and publication:

draft-vaudreuil-futuredelivery  (SMTP Future Delivery)
draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within (IMAP SEARCH WITHIN)  
draft-ietf-lemonade-deployments (for LEMONADE-compliant Mobile Email)  
draft-ietf-lemonade-compress (IMAP COMPRESS)   
draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client (IMAP Quick Mailbox Resync)  

In addition, we are nearing completion on the rest of the documents in 
discussion in the WG.  This includes IMAP CONVERT, IMAP notifications, 
and LEMONADE Profile-bis. We intend to conclude this work by June 2007.

In the LEMONADE Notifications document (draft-ietf-lemonade-
notifications) we have based ‘out of band’ notification on OMA E-Mail 
Notification (EMN).  However, in the development of the functionality 
we have the need to identify items (such as message subject, date, 
sender, etc.) that are not part of the EMN mechanism.  As a result, we 
have described these items as a different extended notification payload 
in addition to the base EMN payload.  We understand that OMA MEM has 
been working with OMA BAC PUSH to validate our current approach and to 
extend EMN with these capabilities.   We would appreciate a status on 
this activity.

For the IMAP CONVERT protocol, the LEMONADE WG had agreed that the only 
‘Mandatory to Implement’ conversion that will appear in the CONVERT 
protocol is HTML to TEXT.  However, as we indicated previously the 
protocol itself can support any subset or even the entire OMA STI 
parameter suite, although we do not believe that support of the full 
list of OMA STI parameters is appropriate.  The LEMONADE profile will 
not specify this list.  We understand that OMA MEM would further subset 
the full list of STI parameters to make it realistic for the OMA mobile 
enabler.   We would appreciate a status on this activity.

As we had previously indicated, LEMONADE has conducted a preliminary 
interoperability event.   Note that from an IETF perspective, our 
interest is only to facilitate protocol maturity.  Specifically, that 
is to prove the feasibility of the protocol (which we have done with 
our preliminary event) and to document multiple interworking 
implementations to prove maturity (which we will do later this year).   
At our preliminary event nine entities participated with four test 
LEMONADE servers and numerous clients.  The group tested these 
implementations against the LEMONADE Profile (RFC 4550) and identified 
some clarifications that were needed to make the specifications clear.  
The specific issues identified at the interop event have been used to 
update our documents.  We expect that we will have another event later 
this year based on the published Profile-bis.  We understand, from your 
earlier Liaison Statement, that this latter event would be of interest 
to OMA IOP.    

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, we would appreciate a presentation on the 
OMA MEM TS for LEMONADE.  Would it be possible to have such a 
presentation at our next meeting?

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:
-	Week of May 15 – LEMONADE interim – TBD
-	July 22-27 – IETF 69 plenary – Chicago
Attachment(s):
     text of liaison (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file410.pdf)





_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade