Skip to main content

Internet Message Store Events
draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2008-12-17
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-12-17
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-12-17
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-12-05
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-11-25
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-11-10
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-11-10
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-11-10
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2008-11-10
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-11-10
07 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-11-07
07 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-11-05
07 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen
2008-11-02
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-11-02
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-07.txt
2008-08-15
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-08-14
2008-08-14
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-08-14
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2008-08-14
07 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-08-14
07 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Given that the defined attributes do not contain interesting fields
such as Subject or From, does it mean that this facility is only …
[Ballot comment]
Given that the defined attributes do not contain interesting fields
such as Subject or From, does it mean that this facility is only
useful if you (a) intend to fetch every new message anyway or (b)
always supply message content? I'd like to understand why the design
is like this.
2008-08-14
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-08-12
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-08-12
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-08-11
07 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot discuss]
In general, a well-written document; however, there are couple
of places that would benefit from some clarification:

The level of detail in the …
[Ballot discuss]
In general, a well-written document; however, there are couple
of places that would benefit from some clarification:

The level of detail in the parameter descriptions (Section 5) varies a
lot -- some specify an exact character/octet string encoding, others
just the information on general level. Section 5 should probably
explicitly say which of these are intended to be precise
specifications, and for which parameters, the exact encoding is left
to future documents (specifying the notification system protocols).
(Also noted in Richard Barnes's SecDir review)

Section 4.4: the terms "subscribe" and "subscription" are used with
many different meanings in email contexts (e.g. mailing list
subscription, IMAP subscribe, event subscription); the text should
explicitly say which of these is meant for MailboxSubscribe etc.
(this is probably obvious to the authors, but not to me :)

Section 5, "timestamp": is this when the notification was generated,
or when the event described by the notification occured? (presumably,
in some systems these might be separated by quite a bit)

Section 5, "user": what about when SASL is not used? ("user"
would also make sense for e.g. HTTP access.)
2008-08-11
07 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-08-11
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-08-11
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
The LEMONADE charter says "The IAB is currently working on the
  specification of general guidelines and requirements for notification
  services. Once …
[Ballot comment]
The LEMONADE charter says "The IAB is currently working on the
  specification of general guidelines and requirements for notification
  services. Once complete this work will be used as input to item 4
  above." (Work item 4 is on notifications.) Has this IAB document
  materialized? The document doesn't refer to it at least, and the
  tracker has no shepherd writeup where I could find out about this.


Section 4.2., paragraph 7:
>      The flagNames MUST not include \Recent.

  Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an
  accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that
  is what you mean).


Section 5., paragraph 10:
>      The IP address of the message store access client which performed
>      the action which triggered the notification.

  Changing "the IP address" to "the IPv4 or IPv6 address" would make it
  clearer that both are allowed.


Section 9.1., paragraph 3:
>    [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
>              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
>              October 1998.

  Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226)
2008-08-11
07 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS-DISCUSS: I'd like to understand why this document is going for
  PS rather than, say, Informational. I see little in here that …
[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS-DISCUSS: I'd like to understand why this document is going for
  PS rather than, say, Informational. I see little in here that is
  actually implementable; much of it is very high-level. The document
  itself says "As a first step towards building a notification system,
  this document attempts to enumerate the core events that real-world
  customers demand." That doesn't sound much like what I'd expect a PS
  in this space to say. Another example: "This document does not
  indicate which event parameters are mandatory or optional.  That is
  done in documents which specify specific message formats or bindings
  to a notification system."
2008-08-11
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-07-18
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes
2008-07-18
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes
2008-07-17
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-07-14
07 Lisa Dusseault Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-08-14 by Lisa Dusseault
2008-07-14
07 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Lisa Dusseault
2008-07-14
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault
2008-07-14
07 Lisa Dusseault Ballot has been issued by Lisa Dusseault
2008-07-14
07 Lisa Dusseault Created "Approve" ballot
2008-07-10
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-07-10
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-06.txt
2008-07-02
07 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lisa Dusseault
2008-05-02
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Richard Barnes.
2008-05-01
07 Lisa Dusseault Security review from Richard Barnes arrived Apr 28 -- needs reply, possibly no changes required
2008-04-23
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-04-18
07 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a registry
called "Internet Message Store Events" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Using …
IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a registry
called "Internet Message Store Events" at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Using IANA Considerations [RFC2434] terminology, entries which do
not start with "vnd." are allocated by IETF Consensus, while those
starting with "vnd." are allocated First Come First Served.


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a sub-registry
called "Event Names" in the "Internet Message Store Events" registry
at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Initial contents of this sub-registry will be:

Event Name Reference
--------------- -----------
FlagsClear [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
FlagsSet [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
Login [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
Logout [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MailboxCreate [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MailboxDelete [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MailboxRename [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MailboxSubscribe [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MailboxUnSubscribe [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MessageAppend [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MessageExpire [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MessageExpunge [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MessageNew [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MessageRead [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
MessageTrash [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
QuotaChange [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
QuotaExceeded [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
QuotaWithin [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a sub-registry
called "Event Parameters" in the "Internet Message Store Events"
registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Initial contents of this sub-registry will be:

Parameter Reference
--------------- -----------
admin [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
bodyStructure [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
clientIP [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
clientPort [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
diskQuota [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
diskUsed [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
envelope [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
flagNames [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
mailboxID [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
maxMessages [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
messageContent [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
messageSize [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
messages [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
modseq [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
oldMailboxID [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
pid [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
process [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
serverFQDN [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
service [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
tags [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
timestamp [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
uidnext [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
uidset [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
uri [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]
user [RFC-lemonade-msgevent-05]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.
2008-04-12
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes
2008-04-12
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes
2008-04-09
07 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-04-09
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-04-09
07 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lisa Dusseault
2008-04-09
07 Lisa Dusseault Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault
2008-04-09
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-04-09
07 (System) Last call text was added
2008-04-09
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-04-03
07 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lisa Dusseault
2008-03-12
07 Lisa Dusseault Draft Added by Lisa Dusseault in state Publication Requested
2008-01-09
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-05.txt
2007-07-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-04.txt
2007-07-08
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-03.txt
2007-05-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-02.txt
2007-03-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-01.txt
2006-06-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent-00.txt