draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-02.txt   draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-03.txt 
Lemonade Lemonade S. Maes
Internet Draft: WITHIN S. H. Maes Internet-Draft R. Cromwell
Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-02 R. Cromwell Intended status: Standards Track Oracle Corporation
Eds.
WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol
draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-03
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.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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."
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
Abstract Abstract
WITHIN is an extension to [RFC3501] SEARCH which returns messages This document describes the WITHIN extension to IMAP SEARCH. IMAP
whose internal date is within or outside a specified interval and SEARCH returns messages whose internal date is within or outside a
differs from SINCE in that an interval in days is specified instead specified interval. The mechanism described here, OLDER and YOUNGER,
of a date. WITHIN is expected to be most useful for persistent differs from SINCE in that the client specifies an interval, rather
searches in combination with mobile devices. than a date. We expect WITHIN to be most useful for persistent
searches from 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.
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 RFC 2119 [1].
When describing the general syntax, some definitions are omitted as When describing the general syntax, we omit some definitions as RFC
they are defined in [RFC3501]. 3501 [2] defines them.
Table of Contents 1. Introduction
Status of this Memo...............................................1 This extension exposes two new search keys, OLDER and YOUNGER, each
Abstract..........................................................1 of which takes a non-zero integer argument corresponding to a time
Conventions used in this document.................................1 interval. The server calculates the time of interest by subtracting
Table of Contents.................................................2 the time interval presented by the client, and either returning
1. Introduction................................................2 messages older or younger than the resultant time and date.
2. Formal Syntax...............................................2
3. Examples....................................................3
4. Security Considerations.....................................3
Normative References..............................................3
Informative References............................................3
Future Work.......................................................3
Version History...................................................3
Acknowledgments...................................................4
Authors Addresses.................................................4
Intellectual Property Statement...................................4
Full Copyright Statement..........................................5
1. Introduction 2. Protocol Operation
The WITHIN extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which An IMAP4 server that supports the capability described here MUST
returns "WITHIN" as one of the supported capabilities in the return "WITHIN" as one of the server supported capabilities in the
CAPABILITY command. CAPABILITY command.
The extension exposes two new search keys, YOUNGER and OLDER, each of For both of the OLDER and YOUNGER search keys, the server calculates
which take a non-zero integer argument corresponding to an interval a date and time by subtracting the interval on the current date and
in hours. YOUNGER returns messages deposited in the mailbox after time of the server. Servers MUST maintain at least a precision of an
the date calculated by subtracting the interval number of hours from hour in this calculation.
the server's current date. OLDER returns messages deposited before
the date calculated as described above.
2. Formal Syntax 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 following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur The server then compares the resultant date and time against the
Form (ABNF) notation. Elements not defined here can be found in INTERNALDATE of the message set in question, as specified in IMAP
the formal syntax of the [ABNF], [RFC3501], and [ABNFEXTEND]. [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.
The ABNF grammar in [RFC3501] is hereby modified with two new search 3. Formal Syntax
keys: OLDER <interval hours> and YOUNGER <interval hours>
search-key /= "OLDER" SP nz-number / "YOUNGER" SP nz-number
; search-key defined in [RFC3501]
3. Examples 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]
C: a1 SEARCH UNSEEN YOUNGER 72 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
4. Example
C: a1 SEARCH UNSEEN YOUNGER 259200
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 (72 hours) Search for all unseen messages within the past 3 days (72 hours)
according to the servers current time. according to the server's current time.
4. Security Considerations 5. 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 [2].
Normative 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", 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 6. Normative References
[Note to RFC editor: please delete this section before publication]
Release 00 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Initial release, separated from VFOLDER draft Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
Release 01 [2] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1",
Incorporate feedback and suggestions received from Arnt RFC 3501, March 2003.
Gulbrandsen.
Release 02 [3] Melnikov, A. and C. Daboo, "Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF",
Interval now defined as hours instead of days as per interim RFC 4466, April 2006.
meeting consensus.
Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank all who have contributed key insight and The authors want to thank all who have contributed key insight and
extensively reviewed and discussed the concepts of LPSEARCH and the extensively reviewed and discussed the concepts of LPSEARCH and the
authors of its early introduction P-IMAP [P-IMAP]. authors of its early introduction in P-IMAP.
We also want to give a special thanks to A. Melnikov and A. We also want to give a special thanks to Alexey Melnikov, Arnt
Gulbrandsen for their review and suggestions. 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.
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
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
Intellectual Property Statement Email: ray.cromwell@oracle.com
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made 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 Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 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 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to Intellectual Property
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in 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 needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the 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 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 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).
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
144 lines changed or deleted 90 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/