draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-00.txt   draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-01.txt 
<SEARCH WITHIN> February 2006 <WITHIN> May 2006
Lemonade Lemonade
Internet Draft: WITHIN S. H. Maes Internet Draft: WITHIN S. H. Maes
Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-00 R. Cromwell Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-01 R. Cromwell
Eds. Eds.
Expires: August 2006 February 2006 Expires: October 2006 May 2006
WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2006.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
WITHIN is an extension to [RFC3501] SEARCH which returns messages WITHIN is an extension to [RFC3501] SEARCH which returns messages
whose internal date is on or within a specified interval and differs whose internal date is within or outside a specified interval and
from SINCE in that an interval in seconds is specified instead of a differs from SINCE in that an interval in days is specified instead
date. WITHIN is expected to be most useful for persistent searches in of a date. WITHIN is expected to be most useful for persistent
combination with mobile devices. searches in combination with mobile devices.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively. server respectively.
<SEARCH WITHIN> February 2006 <WITHIN> May 2006
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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more 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 of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocol(s) it
implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED
level and all the SHOULD level requirements for a protocol is said to level and all the SHOULD level requirements for a protocol is said to
be "unconditionally compliant" to that protocol; one that satisfies be "unconditionally compliant" to that protocol; one that satisfies
all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level
requirements is said to be "conditionally compliant." When requirements is said to be "conditionally compliant." When
describing the general syntax, some definitions are omitted as they describing the general syntax, some definitions are omitted as they
are defined in [RFC3501]. are defined in [RFC3501].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Status of this Memo...............................................1 Status of this Memo...............................................1
Copyright Notice..................................................1
Abstract..........................................................1 Abstract..........................................................1
Conventions used in this document.................................1 Conventions used in this document.................................1
Table of Contents.................................................2 Table of Contents.................................................2
1. Introduction................................................2 1. Introduction................................................2
2. Formal Syntax...............................................2 2. Formal Syntax...............................................3
Security Considerations...........................................3 Security Considerations...........................................3
References........................................................3 References........................................................3
Future Work.......................................................3 Future Work.......................................................3
Version History...................................................3 Version History...................................................4
Acknowledgments...................................................4 Acknowledgments...................................................4
Authors Addresses.................................................4 Authors Addresses.................................................4
Intellectual Property Statement...................................4 Intellectual Property Statement...................................5
Disclaimer of Validity............................................5 Disclaimer of Validity............................................5
Copyright Statement...............................................5 Copyright Statement...............................................5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The WITHIN extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which The WITHIN extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which
returns “WITHIN” as one of the supported capabilities in the returns “WITHIN” as one of the supported capabilities in the
CAPABILITY command. 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.
<WITHIN> May 2006
2. Formal Syntax 2. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) notation. Elements not defined here can be found in Form (ABNF) notation. Elements not defined here can be found in
the formal syntax of the [ABNF], [RFC3501], and [ABNFEXTEND]. the formal syntax of the [ABNF], [RFC3501], and [ABNFEXTEND].
<SEARCH WITHIN> February 2006 The ABNF grammar in [RFC3501] is hereby modified with two new search
keys: OLDER <interval days> and YOUNGER <interval days>
The create ABNF grammar in [RFC3501] is hereby modified to the
grammar defined in [ABNFEXTEND], and the ABNF search-key grammar of
[ABNFEXTEND] has been extended with a new search key: WITHIN
<interval seconds>
search-key /= “WITHIN” nz-number search-key /= “OLDER” nz-number / “YOUNGER” nz-number
; defined in [ABNFEXTEND] ; search-key defined in [RFC3501]
3. Examples 3. Examples
C: a1 SEARCH UNSEEN WITHIN 259200 C: a1 SEARCH UNSEEN YOUNGER 3
S: a1 * SEARCH 4 8 15 16 23 42 S: a1 * SEARCH 4 8 15 16 23 42
Search for all unseen messages within the past 3 days according to Search for all unseen messages within the past 3 days according to
the server’s current time. the server’s current time.
Security Considerations Security Considerations
The WITHIN extension does not raise any security considerations which The WITHIN extension does not raise any security considerations which
are not present in the base protocol. Considerations are the same as are not present in the base protocol. Considerations are the same as
for IMAP [RFC 3501]. for IMAP [RFC 3501].
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
[ABNFEXTEND] Melnikov, A., and C. Daboo, "Collected extensions to [ABNFEXTEND] Melnikov, A., and C. Daboo, "Collected extensions to
IMAP4 ABNF", work in progress, draft-melnikov-imap-ext-abnf-XX.txt. IMAP4 ABNF", work in progress, draft-melnikov-imap-ext-abnf-XX.txt.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M. "IMAP4, Internet Message Access Protocol [RFC3501] Crispin, M. "IMAP4, Internet Message Access Protocol
Version 4 rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003. Version 4 rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3501 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3501
Future Work Future Work
[1] Decide whether seconds is the appropriate unit for specifying the [1] Decide whether other interval units are necessary.
interval.
<WITHIN> May 2006
Version History Version History
Release 00 Release 00
Initial release, separated from VFOLDER draft Initial release, separated from VFOLDER draft
<SEARCH WITHIN> February 2006
Release 01
Incorporate feedback and suggestions received from Arnt
Gulbrandsen.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank all who have contributed key insight and We want to give a special thanks to A. Melnikov and A. Gulbrandsen
extensively reviewed and discussed the concepts of LPSEARCH and its for their review and suggestions. This work is reflecting many
early introduction P-IMAP [P-IMAP]. In particular, this includes the concepts shared with the work done by A. Gulbrandsen.
authors of the P-IMAP draft: Rafiul Ahad – Oracle Corporation, Eugene
Chiu – Oracle Corporation, Ray Cromwell – Oracle Corporation, Jia-der The authors also want to thank all who have contributed key insight
Day – Oracle Corporation, Vi Ha – Oracle Corporation, Wook-Hyun Jeong and extensively reviewed and discussed the concepts of LPSEARCH and
– Samsung Electronics Co. LTF, Chang Kuang – Oracle Corporation, its early introduction P-IMAP [P-IMAP]. In particular, this includes
Rodrigo Lima – Oracle Corporation, Stephane H. Maes – Oracle the authors of the P-IMAP draft: Rafiul Ahad – Oracle Corporation,
Corporation, Gustaf Rosell - Sony Ericsson, Jean Sini – Symbol 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 Technologies, Sung-Mu Son – LG Electronics, Fan Xiaohui - CHINA
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CMCC), Zhao Lijun - CHINA MOBILE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CMCC), Zhao Lijun - CHINA MOBILE
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CMCC). We also want to give a special COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CMCC).
thanks to A. Melnikov for his review and suggestions.
Authors Addresses Authors Addresses
Stephane H. Maes Stephane H. Maes
Oracle Corporation Oracle Corporation
500 Oracle Parkway 500 Oracle Parkway
M/S 4op634 M/S 4op634
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
USA USA
Phone: +1-650-607-6296 Phone: +1-650-607-6296
Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com
Ray Cromwell Ray Cromwell
Oracle Corporation Oracle Corporation
500 Oracle Parkway 500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
USA USA
<WITHIN> May 2006
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
<SEARCH WITHIN> February 2006
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 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 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 48 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.31. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/