[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5032

                               <WITHIN>                       May 2006

Lemonade
Internet Draft: WITHIN                                       S. H. Maes
Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-01              R. Cromwell
                                                                   Eds.

Expires: October 2006                                          May 2006


               WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2006.

Abstract

   WITHIN is an extension to [RFC3501] SEARCH which returns messages
   whose internal date is within or outside a specified interval and
   differs from SINCE in that an interval in days is specified instead
   of a date. WITHIN is expected to be most useful for persistent
   searches in combination with mobile devices.

Conventions used in this document

   In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
   server respectively.





Maes                                                          [Page 1]

                               <WITHIN>                       May 2006


   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
   of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocol(s) it
   implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED
   level and all the SHOULD level requirements for a protocol is said to
   be "unconditionally compliant" to that protocol; one that satisfies
   all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level
   requirements is said to be "conditionally compliant."  When
   describing the general syntax, some definitions are omitted as they
   are defined in [RFC3501].


Table of Contents

   Status of this Memo...............................................1
   Abstract..........................................................1
   Conventions used in this document.................................1
   Table of Contents.................................................2
   1.    Introduction................................................2
   2.    Formal Syntax...............................................3
   Security Considerations...........................................3
   References........................................................3
   Future Work.......................................................3
   Version History...................................................4
   Acknowledgments...................................................4
   Authors Addresses.................................................4
   Intellectual Property Statement...................................5
   Disclaimer of Validity............................................5
   Copyright Statement...............................................5


1. Introduction

   The WITHIN extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which
   returns “WITHIN” as one of the supported capabilities in the
   CAPABILITY command.

   The extension exposes two new search keys, YOUNGER and OLDER, each of
   which take a non-zero integer argument corresponding to an interval
   in days.  YOUNGER returns messages deposited in the mailbox after the
   date calculated by subtracting the interval number of day from the
   server’s current date. OLDER returns messages deposited before the
   date calculated as described above.





Maes                   Expires – November 2006               [Page 2]

                               <WITHIN>                       May 2006


2. Formal Syntax

   The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
   Form (ABNF) notation.  Elements not defined here can be found in
   the formal syntax of the [ABNF], [RFC3501], and [ABNFEXTEND].

   The ABNF grammar in [RFC3501] is hereby modified with two new search
   keys: OLDER <interval days> and YOUNGER <interval days>


      search-key /= “OLDER” nz-number / “YOUNGER” nz-number
                       ; search-key defined in [RFC3501]

3. Examples

   C: a1 SEARCH UNSEEN YOUNGER 3
   S: a1 * SEARCH 4 8 15 16 23 42

   Search for all unseen messages within the past 3 days according to
   the server’s current time.


Security Considerations

   The WITHIN extension does not raise any security considerations which
   are not present in the base protocol. Considerations are the same as
   for IMAP [RFC 3501].


References

   [ABNF] D. Crocker, et al. "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications:
      ABNF”, RFC 2234, November 1997.
      http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2234

   [ABNFEXTEND] Melnikov, A., and C. Daboo, "Collected extensions to
   IMAP4 ABNF", work in progress, draft-melnikov-imap-ext-abnf-XX.txt.


   [RFC3501] Crispin, M. "IMAP4, Internet Message Access Protocol
      Version 4 rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
      http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3501


Future Work

   [1] Decide whether other interval units are necessary.




Maes                   Expires – November 2006               [Page 3]

                               <WITHIN>                       May 2006


Version History

   Release 00
      Initial release, separated from VFOLDER draft

   Release 01
      Incorporate feedback and suggestions received from Arnt
   Gulbrandsen.

Acknowledgments

   We want to give a special thanks to A. Melnikov and A. Gulbrandsen
   for their review and suggestions. This work is reflecting many
   concepts shared with the work done by A. Gulbrandsen.

   The authors also want to thank all who have contributed key insight
   and extensively reviewed and discussed the concepts of LPSEARCH and
   its early introduction P-IMAP [P-IMAP]. In particular, this includes
   the authors of the P-IMAP draft: Rafiul Ahad – Oracle Corporation,
   Eugene Chiu – Oracle Corporation, Ray Cromwell – Oracle Corporation,
   Jia-der Day – Oracle Corporation, Vi Ha – Oracle Corporation, Wook-
   Hyun Jeong – Samsung Electronics Co. LTF, Chang Kuang – Oracle
   Corporation, Rodrigo Lima – Oracle Corporation, Stephane H. Maes –
   Oracle Corporation, Gustaf Rosell - Sony Ericsson, Jean Sini – Symbol
   Technologies, Sung-Mu Son – LG Electronics, Fan Xiaohui - CHINA
   MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CMCC), Zhao Lijun - CHINA MOBILE
   COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CMCC).

Authors Addresses

   Stephane H. Maes
   Oracle Corporation
   500 Oracle Parkway
   M/S 4op634
   Redwood Shores, CA 94065
   USA
   Phone: +1-650-607-6296
   Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com


   Ray Cromwell
   Oracle Corporation
   500 Oracle Parkway
   Redwood Shores, CA 94065
   USA






Maes                   Expires – November 2006               [Page 4]

                               <WITHIN>                       May 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.







Maes                   Expires – November 2006               [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/