IMAP URLs

Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Sun, 17 November 1996 23:51 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa22193; 17 Nov 96 18:51 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24316; 17 Nov 96 18:51 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id SAA20885 for uri-out; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:33:33 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA20880 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 18:33:31 -0500
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA09808 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Sun, 17 Nov 96 18:33:29 -0500
Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com ("port 38353"@ELEANOR.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.0-7 #8694) id <01IBYH8F3BE29OE2O3@INNOSOFT.COM> for uri@bunyip.com; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 15:33:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: IMAP URLs
To: URI list <uri@bunyip.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961117151842.29171E-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

With the major web browser vendors all committed to supporting IMAP, it's
clear we really need an IMAP URL format.  I have written an internet
draft:

  <ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-newman-url-imap-02.txt>

with my preliminary proposal.  I'm not experienced in URL design so I
based it on RFC 1738 as much as I could.  I would very much appreciate
review by this community *before* it moves any further.

I know I need to add a section on relative URLs and swap the order of the
parameters and queries based on RFC 1808.

As far as I know, the IMAP URL scheme is the first to address the issue of
multiple strong authentication mechanisms.  I'd very much appreciate
comments on that topic.

I also believe there is a bug in RFC 1808 with respect to multiple
parameters.  I think the relative URL should inherit all parameters form
the base URL, except those that are specified in the relative URL.  The
current spec indicates that if *any* parameter is present in the relative
URL, it overrides all parameters in the base URL.  Comments?

Thanks in advance for your help!