draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-03.txt   draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-04.txt 
Applications Area Working Group B. Leiba Applications Area Working Group B. Leiba
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 4466 (if approved) A. Melnikov Updates: 4466 (if approved) A. Melnikov
Obsoletes: 6237 (if approved) Isode Limited Obsoletes: 6237 (if approved) Isode Limited
Intended status: Standards Track July 30, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track August 07, 2014
Expires: January 29, 2015 Expires: February 06, 2015
IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension
draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-03 draft-ietf-appsawg-multimailbox-search-04
Abstract Abstract
The IMAP4 specification allows the searching of only the selected The IMAP4 specification allows the searching of only the selected
mailbox. A user often wants to search multiple mailboxes, and a mailbox. A user often wants to search multiple mailboxes, and a
client that wishes to support this must issue a series of SELECT and client that wishes to support this must issue a series of SELECT and
SEARCH commands, waiting for each to complete before moving on to the SEARCH commands, waiting for each to complete before moving on to the
next. This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes next. This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
with one command, limiting the delays caused by many round trips, and with one command, limiting the delays caused by many round trips, and
not requiring disruption of the currently selected mailbox. This not requiring disruption of the currently selected mailbox. This
extension also uses MAILBOX and TAG fields in ESEARCH responses, extension also uses MAILBOX, UIDVALIDITY, and TAG fields in ESEARCH
allowing a client to pipeline the searches if it chooses. This responses, allowing a client to pipeline the searches if it chooses.
document updates RFC 4466 and obsoletes RFC 6237. This document updates RFC 4466 and obsoletes RFC 6237.
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 January 29, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 06, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
o The MAILBOX, UIDVALIDITY, and TAG fields in the responses allow a o The MAILBOX, UIDVALIDITY, and TAG fields in the responses allow a
client to distinguish which responses go with which search (and client to distinguish which responses go with which search (and
which mailbox). A client can safely pipeline these search which mailbox). A client can safely pipeline these search
commands without danger of confusion. The addition of the MAILBOX commands without danger of confusion. The addition of the MAILBOX
and UIDVALIDITY fields updates the search-correlator item defined and UIDVALIDITY fields updates the search-correlator item defined
in [RFC4466]. in [RFC4466].
This extension was previously published as experimental. There is This extension was previously published as experimental. There is
now implementation experience, giving confidence in the protocol, so now implementation experience, giving confidence in the protocol, so
this document puts the extension on the Standards Track, with some this document puts the extension on the Standards Track, with some
minor updates that were informed by the implementation experience. minor updates that were informed by the implementation experience. A
[[RFC Editor: Please remove this paragraph at publication.]] brief summary of changes is in Section 8.
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.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 9 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/