Lemonade
Internet Draft: WITHIN                                       S. H. Maes
Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-01 draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-02              R. Cromwell
                                                                   Eds.

               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.
        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.

   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 Syntax...............................................2
   3.    Examples....................................................3
   4.    Security Considerations...........................................3
   References........................................................3 Considerations.....................................3
   Normative References..............................................3
   Informative References............................................3
   Future Work.......................................................3
   Version History...................................................4 History...................................................3
   Acknowledgments...................................................4
   Authors Addresses.................................................4
   Intellectual Property Statement...................................5
   Disclaimer of Validity............................................5 Statement...................................4
   Full Copyright Statement...............................................5 Statement..........................................5

1. Introduction

   The WITHIN extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which
   returns “WITHIN” "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. hours.  YOUNGER returns messages deposited in the mailbox after
   the date calculated by subtracting the interval number of day hours from
   the
   server’s server's current date. OLDER returns messages deposited before
   the date calculated as described above.

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> hours> and YOUNGER <interval days> hours>
      search-key /= “OLDER” "OLDER" SP nz-number / “YOUNGER” "YOUNGER" SP nz-number
                       ; search-key defined in [RFC3501]

3. Examples

   C: a1 SEARCH UNSEEN YOUNGER 3 72
   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.

4. 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].

Normative References

   [ABNF] D. Crocker, et al. "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications:
      ABNF”,
      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. RFC 4466, April 2006.

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

Informative References

   [P-IMAP] Maes, S.H., Lima R., Kuang, C., Cromwell, R., Ha, V. and
   Chiu, E., Day, J., Ahad R., Jeong W-H., Rosell G., Sini, J., Sohn S-
   M., Xiaohui F. and Lijun Z., "Push Extensions to the IMAP Protocol
   (P-IMAP)", draft-maes-lemonade-p-imap-xx.txt, (work in progress).

Future Work

   [Note to RFC editor: please delete this section before publication]

   [1] Decide whether other interval units are necessary.

Version History
   [Note to RFC editor: please delete this section before publication]

   Release 00
      Initial release, separated from VFOLDER draft

   Release 01
      Incorporate feedback and suggestions received from Arnt
   Gulbrandsen.

   Release 02
      Interval now defined as hours instead of days as per interim
   meeting consensus.

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 the
   authors of 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).

   We also want to give a special thanks to A. Melnikov and A.
   Gulbrandsen for their review and suggestions.

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

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights
   intellectual property 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 neither does it represent that it
   has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. BCP-11.  Copies of IPR disclosures
   claims of rights made to the IETF Secretariat available for publication 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. Secretariat.

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

Disclaimer of Validity Executive
   Director.

Acknowledgement

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

Full 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.

   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 and translations of it may be copied and furnished to the rights, licenses
   others, and restrictions contained derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in BCP 78, its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as set forth therein, needed for the authors retain all their rights.

Acknowledgement

   Funding purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the RFC Editor function is currently provided Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society. Society or its successors or assigns.