Lemonade                                                  E. Burger, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         BEA Systems, Inc.
Updates: RFC 3501                                           June 1, 2007
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track                             R. Cromwell
Expires: August 27, 2007                                         S. Maes
                                                      Oracle Corporation
                                                       February 23, December 3, 2007

              WITHIN Search extension to the IMAP Protocol
                  draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-04
                  draft-ietf-lemonade-search-within-05

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 August 27, December 3, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

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 BEFORE and SINCE in that the client specifies an
   interval, rather than a date.  We expect  WITHIN to be most is useful for persistent
   searches where either the device does not have the capacity to
   perform the search at regular intervals or the network is of limited
   bandwidth and thus there is a desire to reduce network traffic from mobile devices.
   sending repeated requests and redundant responses.

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.

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.
   interval in seconds.  The server calculates the time of interest by
   subtracting the time interval presented by the client, and client presents.  The server then
   either returning returnings messages older or younger than the resultant time
   and date. date, depending on the search key used.

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 the OLDER and YOUNGER search keys, the server calculates a
   target date and time by subtracting the interval interval, specified in
   seconds, from the current date and time of the server.  The server
   then compares the target time with the INTERNALDATE of the message,
   as specified in IMAP [2].  For OLDER, messages match if the
   INTERNALDATE is less recent than, than or equal to, to the target time.  For
   YOUNGER, messages match if the INTERNALDATE is more recent than, or
   equal to, the target time.

   In some cases, the server may be unable, or unwilling,

   Both OLDER and YOUNGER searches always result in exact matching, to use a
   precision
   the resolution of a single second.  This  However, if one is expected to be the case
   particularly doing a dynamic
   evaluation, for dynamically updated searches.  In these cases,
   servers are permitted example, in a context [4], one needs to reduce be aware the precision used for date
   calulcations and comparisons, but SHOULD ensure that a precision of
   no less than an hour (3600 seconds) is used.  This
   server might mean re-
   running perform the search criteria only every hour for a dynamic search, for
   example. evaluation periodically.  Thus, the server
   may delay the updates.  Clients MUST be aware that dynamic search results, whether viewed
   directly or through some other mechanism, MAY
   results may not be accurate as a
   result.

   For example, if reflect the client requests messages that are younger than
   4020 (67 minutes), but the server only performs searches with hourly
   accuracy (as mandated above), current state of the server performs the search as if mailbox.  If the
   client requested needs a 60-minute interval.  Note search result that reflects the choice current state of
   rounding up or down is at the discretion of
   mailbox, we RECOMMEND the server.  However,
   rounding down to zero is NOT RECOMMENDED, as this may result in
   searches for messages YOUNGER than client issues a value being rounded to YOUNGER
   0, which will always fail. new search.

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

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) days, or 259200
   seconds, according to the server's current time.

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].

6.  IANA Considerations

   None.

   Per the IMAP RFC [2], registration of a new IMAP capablity in the
   IMAP Capability registry requires the publication of a standards
   track RFC or an IESG approved experimental RFC.  The registry is
   currently located at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities>.  This standards
   track document defines the WITHIN IMAP capability.  We request IANA
   to add this extension to the IANA IMAP Capability registry.

7.  References

7.1.  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.

7.2.  Informative References

   [4]  Melnikov, D. and C. Daboo, "Contexts for IMAP4",
        draft-cridland-imap-context-02 (work in progress), May 2006.

Appendix A.  Contributors

   Stephane Maes and Ray Cromwell wrote the original version of this
   document as part of P-IMAP as well as the first drafts for the IETF.
   From an attribution perspective, they are clearly authors.

Appendix B.  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 Arnt Gilbrandsen, Alexey
   Melnikov, Ken
   Murchison, Zoltan Ordogh, and most especially Dave Cridland for their
   review and suggestions.

Authors' Addresses  A special thank you goes to Alexey Melnikov
   for his choice submission of text.

Author's Address

   Eric W. Burger (editor)
   BEA Systems, Inc.
   USA

   Phone:
   Fax:
   Email: eric.burger@bea.com
   URI:

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

   Email: ray.cromwell@oracle.com

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

   Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com   http://www.standardstrack.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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).