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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5032

Lemonade                                                         S. Maes
Internet-Draft                                               R. Cromwell
Intended status: Standards Track                      Oracle Corporation
Expires: December 3, 2006                                      June 2006


              WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol
                  draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-03

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 December 3, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).














Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


Abstract

   This document describes the WITHIN extension to IMAP SEARCH.  IMAP
   SEARCH returns messages whose internal date is within or outside a
   specified interval.  The mechanism described here, OLDER and YOUNGER,
   differs from SINCE in that the client specifies an interval, rather
   than a date.  We expect WITHIN to be most useful for persistent
   searches from mobile devices.











































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


Conventions Used in this Document

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

   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 RFC 2119 [1].

   When describing the general syntax, we omit some definitions as RFC
   3501 [2] defines them.








































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


1.  Introduction

   This extension exposes two new search keys, OLDER and YOUNGER, each
   of which takes a non-zero integer argument corresponding to a time
   interval.  The server calculates the time of interest by subtracting
   the time interval presented by the client, and either returning
   messages older or younger than the resultant time and date.












































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


2.  Protocol Operation

   An IMAP4 server that supports the capability described here MUST
   return "WITHIN" as one of the server supported capabilities in the
   CAPABILITY command.

   For both of the OLDER and YOUNGER search keys, the server calculates
   a date and time by subtracting the interval on the current date and
   time of the server.  Servers MUST maintain at least a precision of an
   hour in this calculation.

   The interval specification is in seconds.  The server honors the
   interval request if it has the precision to do so.  If the server
   does not have the precision to honor the interval request, the server
   MUST select the closest precision possible.  For example, if the
   client requests messages that are younger than 4020 (67 minutes), but
   the server only performs searches with hourly accuracy (as mandated
   above), the server performs the search as if the client requested a
   60-minute interval.

   The server then compares the resultant date and time against the
   INTERNALDATE of the message set in question, as specified in IMAP
   [2]).  For OLDER, messages match if the date and time is less recent
   then the INTERNALDATE.  For YOUNGER, messages match if the date and
   time is more recent then the INTERNALDATE.  If the date and time
   matches the INTERNALDATE precisely, both OLDER and YOUNGER will match
   the message.
























Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


3.  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 ABNF [1], IMAP [2], and IMAP Extended ABNF [3]

   This document extends RFC 3501 [2] with two new search keys: OLDER
   <interval> and YOUNGER <interval>.
   search-key /= ( "OLDER" | "YOUNGER" ) SP nz-number
                  ; search-key defined in RFC 3501









































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


4.  Example
   C: a1 SEARCH UNSEEN YOUNGER 259200
   S: a1 * SEARCH 4 8 15 16 23 42

   Search for all unseen messages within the past 3 days (72 hours)
   according to the server's current time.













































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


5.  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 [2].














































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


6.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.

   [2]  Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1",
        RFC 3501, March 2003.

   [3]  Melnikov, A. and C. Daboo, "Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF",
        RFC 4466, April 2006.









































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors want to thank all who have contributed key insight and
   extensively reviewed and discussed the concepts of LPSEARCH and the
   authors of its early introduction in P-IMAP.

   We also want to give a special thanks to Alexey Melnikov, Arnt
   Gilbrandsen, Zoltan Ordogh, and Dave Cridland for their review and
   suggestions, as well as thanks to Eric Burger for reformatting and
   editing the document to meet IETF publication standards.









































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Stephane H. Maes
   Oracle Corporation
   500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4op634
   Redwood Shores, CA  94065
   USA

   Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com


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

   Email: ray.cromwell@oracle.com

































Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Search Within                    June 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Maes & Cromwell         Expires December 3, 2006               [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/