< draft-iceman-imap-specialuse-important-00.txt		draft-iceman-imap-specialuse-important-01.txt >
	Network Working Group B. Leiba		Network Working Group B. Leiba
	Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies		Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
	Updates: 6154 (if approved) E. Iceman		Updates: 3348,3501,6154 E. Iceman
	Intended status: Standards Track Google, Inc.		(if approved) Google, Inc.
	Expires: July 18, 2013 January 14, 2013		Intended status: Standards Track January 17, 2013
			Expires: July 21, 2013
	IMAP LIST Special-Use Attribute: \Important		IMAP LIST Special-Use Attribute: \Important
	draft-iceman-imap-specialuse-important-00		draft-iceman-imap-specialuse-important-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	RFC 6154 created an IMAP Special-Use LIST extension and defined an		RFC 6154 created an IMAP Special-Use LIST extension and defined an
	initial set of attributes. This document defines a new attribute,		initial set of attributes. This document defines a new attribute,
	"\Important", and establishes a new IANA registry for IMAP Special-		"\Important", and establishes a new IANA registry for IMAP folder
	Use LIST extension folder attributes, updating RFC 6154.		attributes, updating RFCs 3348, 3501, and 6154.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 20 ¶
	2. Definition of the 'Important' Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Definition of the 'Important' Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.1. Creation of the IMAP LIST Special-Use Attributes Registry . . 4		4.1. Creation of the IMAP LIST Special-Use Attributes Registry . . 4
	4.2. Initial entries for the registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.2. Initial entries for the registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.3. Instructions to the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.3. Instructions to the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Changes During Document Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC6154] defines an extension to the Internet Message Access		[RFC6154] defines an extension to the Internet Message Access
	Protocol (IMAP) LIST command [RFC3501] for special-use mailboxes.		Protocol (IMAP) LIST command [RFC3501] for special-use mailboxes.
	The extension allows servers to provide extra information		The extension allows servers to provide extra information
	(attributes) about the purpose of a mailbox and defines an initial		(attributes) about the purpose of a mailbox and defines an initial
	set of special-use attributes. RFC 6154 did not define a registry		set of special-use attributes. There are now three RFCs that define
	for those attributes.		mailbox attributes, and no registry for those attributes.
	This document defines a new special-use attribute, "\Important", to		This document defines a new special-use attribute, "\Important", to
	designate a mailbox that will hold messages that are considered		designate a mailbox that will hold messages that are considered
	important for the user, by some externally defined criteria. This		important for the user, by some externally defined criteria. This
	document also creates a registry for IMAP special-use mailbox		document also creates a registry for IMAP mailbox attributes and
	attributes and registers both the new attribute and the initial set,		registers both the new attribute and those defined earlier, updating
	updating RFC 6154.		[RFC3348], [RFC3501], and [RFC6154].
	1.1. Conventions used in this document		1.1. Conventions used in this document
	In examples, "C:" indicates lines sent by a client that is connected		In examples, "C:" indicates lines sent by a client that is connected
	to a server. "S:" indicates lines sent by the server to the client.		to a server. "S:" indicates lines sent by the server to the client.
	2. Definition of the 'Important' Attribute		2. Definition of the 'Important' Attribute
	The "\Important" mailbox attribute is a signal that the mailbox		The "\Important" mailbox attribute is a signal that the mailbox
	contains messages that are likely important to the user. For		contains messages that are likely important to the user. For
	example, the system might automatically put messages there based on		example, the system might automatically put messages there based on
	available signals (such as who the message is from, who else the		available signals (such as who the message is from, who else the
	message is addressed to, evaluation of the subject or content). Or		message is addressed to, evaluation of the subject or content). Or
	it might be a way for users to train the system as to what messages		it might be a way for users to train the system as to what messages
	are important (the system can learn patterns from the messages the		are important (the system can learn patterns from the messages the
	user copies to that mailbox).		user copies to that mailbox).
			[[anchor4: Possible change here: Cyrus has suggested (1) removal of
			the last sentence above, about learning, and (2) definition of an
			$Important message keyword, and reference to \Important as a virtual
			mailbox to collect all such messages (as \Flagged does).]]
	This is distinct from the "\Flagged" attribute in that evaluation of		This is distinct from the "\Flagged" attribute in that evaluation of
	importance here is based on heuristics, whereas "\Flagged" is		importance here is based on heuristics, whereas "\Flagged" is
	typically based on the setting of the IMAP flag of the same name.		typically based on the setting of the IMAP flag of the same name.
	2.1. Formal Syntax		2.1. Formal Syntax
	The following syntax specification updates the one in [RFC6154],		The following syntax specification updates the one in [RFC6154],
	Section 6, using Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) as described in		Section 6, using Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) as described in
	[RFC5234].		[RFC5234].
	skipping to change at page 4, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 44 ¶
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	[[RFC Editor: Please replace "THIS RFC" throughout this section with		[[RFC Editor: Please replace "THIS RFC" throughout this section with
	the identification given to this document, and remove this		the identification given to this document, and remove this
	paragraph.]]		paragraph.]]
	4.1. Creation of the IMAP LIST Special-Use Attributes Registry		4.1. Creation of the IMAP LIST Special-Use Attributes Registry
	IANA is asked to create a new registry in the group "Internet Message		IANA is asked to create a new registry in the group "Internet Message
	Access Protocol (IMAP) 4 Registries". The new registry will be		Access Protocol (IMAP) 4 Registries". The new registry will be
	called "IMAP LIST Special-Use Attributes", and will have as its		called "IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes", and will have two references:
	reference RFC 6154 and THIS RFC. New registrations will be accepted		RFC 3501, Section 7.2.2, and THIS RFC, Section 4.
	through the Expert Review policy [RFC5226] (and see Section 4.3).
	The registry entries will contain three fields:		The registry entries will contain three fields:
	1. Attribute Name		1. Attribute Name
	2. Description		2. Description
	3. Reference		3. Reference
	IANA will keep this list in alphabetical order by Attribute Name,		IANA will keep this list in alphabetical order by Attribute Name,
	which is registered without the initial backslash ("\").		which is registered without the initial backslash ("\").
			New registrations will be accepted through the Expert Review policy
			[RFC5226] (and see Section 4.3). New registrations are requested
			through the IANA Considerations section in an RFC, or, for requests
			that do not come from an RFC, by sending email to IANA asking for a
			new IMAP Mailbox Name Attribute and giving the requested values for
			each of the three fields.
	4.2. Initial entries for the registry		4.2. Initial entries for the registry
	The registry will initially consist of:		The registry will initially contain these entries:
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		+===============+===================================+===========+
	| Attribute | Description | Reference |		| Attribute | Description | Reference |
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| Name | | |
	| All | All messages | [RFC6154] |		+===============+===================================+===========+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| All | All messages | [RFC6154] |
	| Archive | Archived messages | [RFC6154] |		+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| Archive | Archived messages | [RFC6154] |
	| Drafts | Messages that are working drafts | [RFC6154] |		+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| Drafts | Messages that are working drafts | [RFC6154] |
	| Flagged | Messages with the \Flagged flag | [RFC6154] |		+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| Flagged | Messages with the \Flagged flag | [RFC6154] |
	| Important | Messages deemed important to user | THIS RFC |		+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| HasChildren | Has accessible child mailboxes | [RFC3348] |
	| Junk | Messages identified as Spam/Junk | [RFC6154] |		+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| HasNoChildren | Has no accessible child mailboxes | [RFC3348] |
	| Sent | Sent mail | [RFC6154] |		+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| Important | Messages deemed important to user | THIS RFC |
	| Trash | Messages the user has discarded | [RFC6154] |		+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
	+-----------+-----------------------------------+-----------+		| Junk | Messages identified as Spam/Junk | [RFC6154] |
			+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| Marked | Server has marked the mailbox as | [RFC3501] |
			| | "interesting" | |
			+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| NoInferiors | No hierarchy under this name | [RFC3501] |
			+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| Noselect | The mailbox is not selectable | [RFC3501] |
			+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| Sent | Sent mail | [RFC6154] |
			+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| Trash | Messages the user has discarded | [RFC6154] |
			+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
			| Unmarked | No new messages since last select | [RFC3501] |
			+===============+===================================+===========+
	4.3. Instructions to the Designated Expert		4.3. Instructions to the Designated Expert
	The expert reviewer, who will be designated by the IESG, is expected		The expert reviewer, who will be designated by the IESG, is expected
	to provide only a general review of the requested registration,		to provide only a general review of the requested registration,
	checking that the reference and description are adequate for		checking that the reference and description are adequate for
	understanding the intent of the registered attribute. Efforts should		understanding the intent of the registered attribute. Efforts should
	also be made to generalize the intent of an attribute so that		also be made to generalize the intent of an attribute so that
	multiple implementations with the same requirements may reuse		multiple implementations with the same requirements may reuse
	existing attributes. Except for this check, this is intended to be		existing attributes. Except for this check, this is intended to be
	very close to a first come first served policy, and the expert should		very close to a first come first served policy, and the expert should
	not block serious registration requests with a reasonable reference.		not block serious registration requests with a reasonable reference.
	The reference may be to any form of documentation, including a web		The reference may be to any form of documentation, including a web
	page, but consideration should be given to providing one that is		page, but consideration should be given to providing one that is
	expected to be long-lived and stable.		expected to be long-lived and stable.
	5. Normative References		5. Changes During Document Development
			[[anchor11: RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to
			publication.]]
			Changes in -01
			o Expanded the new registry to all mailbox name attributes, and
			added the attributes from 3501 and 3348 (suggested by Alexey).
			This also adds those two documents to the "updates" list.
			o Recorded Cyrus's suggestion to define $Important.
			6. References
			6.1. Normative References
	[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION		[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
	4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.		4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,		IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
	May 2008.		May 2008.
	[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax		[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
	Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.		Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
	[RFC6154] Leiba, B. and J. Nicolson, "IMAP LIST Extension for		[RFC6154] Leiba, B. and J. Nicolson, "IMAP LIST Extension for
	Special-Use Mailboxes", RFC 6154, March 2011.		Special-Use Mailboxes", RFC 6154, March 2011.
			6.2. Informative References
			[RFC3348] Gahrns, M. and R. Cheng, "The Internet Message Action
			Protocol (IMAP4) Child Mailbox Extension", RFC 3348,
			July 2002.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Barry Leiba		Barry Leiba
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Phone: +1 646 827 0648		Phone: +1 646 827 0648
	Email: barryleiba@computer.org		Email: barryleiba@computer.org
	URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/		URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
	Eric Iceman		Eric Iceman
	Google, Inc.		Google, Inc.
	Email: iceman@google.com		Email: iceman@google.com
End of changes. 19 change blocks.
	40 lines changed or deleted		90 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/