Liaison statement
Update on LEMONADE activity - March 2008
Additional information about IETF liaison relationships is available on the
IETF webpage
and the
Internet Architecture Board liaison webpage.
State | Posted |
---|---|
Submitted Date | 2008-03-21 |
From Group | lemonade |
From Contact | Glenn Parsons |
To Group | OMA-MWG-MEM |
To Contacts | OMA-LIAISON@mail.openmobilealliance.org |
Cc | lemonade@ietf.org dean.willis@softarmor.com Chris.Newman@Sun.COM |
Response Contact | lemonade@ietf.org |
Technical Contact | Gparsons@nortel.com eburger@bea.com |
Purpose | For action |
Deadline | 2008-06-01 Action Taken |
Attachments |
text of liaison
Mapping OMA MEM RD to LEMONADE |
Body |
From: IETF LEMONADE Working Group To: OMA MWG MEM Sub Working Group Date: March 2008 Title: Update on LEMONADE activity Response contact: lemonade@ietf.org Purpose: For Action The IETF LEMONADE working group (WG) would like to update you on our progress. Of note is that we have numerous 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 RFC 4865 – SMTP future delivery RFC 4978 – IMAP COMPRESS RFC 5032 – IMAP SEARCH WITHIN RFC 5092 – IMAP URL RFC 5161 – IMAP ENABLE RFC 5162 – IMAP Quick Mailbox Resync Furthermore, the following documents have been essentially completed and are in the process of formal approval and publication: draft-ietf-lemonade-deployments (for LEMONADE-compliant Mobile Email) draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent (canonical list of events) draft-ietf-lemonade-convert (IMAP CONVERT) In addition, we are nearing completion on the rest of the documents in discussion in the WG. This includes IMAP CONTEXT, IMAP SIEVE, IMAP streaming, IMAP notifications, LEMONADE architecture and LEMONADE Profile-bis. We have a last call schedule in place and intend to conclude this work by May 2008. During our IETF 71 plenary meeting, we reviewed the OMA MEM Requirements Document (RD). This exercise was useful as a follow-up to the draft OMA MEM RD review we conducted in September 2005. We have concluded that LEMONADE generally meets the requirements you have set. There are, of course, some requirements that we believe are out of scope from a LEMONADE protocol perspective, and others that are simply implementation specific details. As well, there are some requirements that are not clear to us and we would appreciate some clarification to understand if it is applicable to LEMONADE. We have attached our detailed review to this liaison for your comment. 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 and provide comment/input, we would appreciate an update on the OMA MEM TS for LEMONADE. If possible, it would be useful to hold a joint OMA MEM / IETF LEMONADE workshop to close on clarifications we are looking for with the OMA MEM RD (and AD) and also to assist you with the LEMONADE details form the OMA MEM TS. 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: - Apr/May/Jun – interim (if necessary) to deal with comments - July 28 – August 1 – IETF 72 plenary – Dublin |