Isode Limited March 2008

Similar documents
Category: Standards Track July The Post Office Protocol (POP3) Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Authentication Mechanism

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5464 Category: Standards Track February 2009

Category: Standards Track January 2008

Request for Comments: 4315 December 2005 Obsoletes: 2359 Category: Standards Track. Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - UIDPLUS extension

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: January 2013

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5235 January 2008 Obsoletes: 3685 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track January 2008

Request for Comments: 5178 Category: Standards Track Isode Ltd. May 2008

Category: Standards Track June Requesting Attributes by Object Class in the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Status of This Memo

Category: Standards Track September MIB Textual Conventions for Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)

Request for Comments: 5179 Category: Standards Track May 2008

October Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) Extension for Streaming Feeds

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8508 Category: Standards Track January 2019 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8437 Updates: 3501 August 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4792 Updates: 3641 January 2007 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: 4759 Category: Standards Track Neustar Inc. L. Conroy Roke Manor Research November 2006

Category: Standards Track October 2006

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track August Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option

vcard Extensions for Instant Messaging (IM)

Request for Comments: 5115 Category: Standards Track UCL January Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) Attribute for Resource Priority

Category: Standards Track September 2003

Category: Standards Track Isode Ltd. February 2009

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc January The Secure Shell (SSH) Session Channel Break Extension

Category: Standards Track March Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP

Network Working Group Request for Comments: August Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4

Request for Comments: 3934 Updates: 2418 October 2004 BCP: 94 Category: Best Current Practice

Request for Comments: 4680 Updates: 4346 September 2006 Category: Standards Track

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks August 2008

Category: Standards Track December 2007

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4424 February 2006 Updates: 4348 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: 5010 Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. September 2007

Request for Comments: May 2007

C. Martin ipath Services February A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 2342 Category: Standards Track Innosoft May 1998

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Subscriber-ID Option

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8440 Category: Standards Track ISSN: August 2018

Category: Standards Track June 2006

Network Working Group. February 2005

Network Working Group Request for Comments: A. Zinin Alcatel-Lucent March 2007

Network Working Group. Category: Informational May OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization

Network Working Group. Updates: 3463, 4468, 4954 June 2008 Category: Best Current Practice. A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4143 Category: Standards Track Brandenburg November 2005

Network Working Group. Category: Informational October 2005

Updates: 2409 May 2005 Category: Standards Track. Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange version 1 (IKEv1)

Network Working Group. BCP: 131 July 2007 Category: Best Current Practice

Expires: October 9, 2005 April 7, 2005

Expires in six months 24 October 2004 Obsoletes: RFC , , 3377, 3771

Network Working Group. Updates: 5228 January 2008 Category: Standards Track

Request for Comments: 4715 Category: Informational NTT November 2006

Network Working Group Request for Comments: Cisco Systems, Inc. June 2006

Network Working Group. Cisco Systems June 2007

Request for Comments: 3861 Category: Standards Track August 2004

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4432 March 2006 Category: Standards Track

Network Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track Columbia U. Expires: March 5, 2009 September 1, 2008

Request for Comments: 4571 Category: Standards Track July 2006

Category: Standards Track October Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4)

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track July 2007

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems May 2007

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track January 2019 ISSN:

Request for Comments: 4633 Category: Experimental August 2006

Network Working Group. Oryx Mail Systems GmhH A. Melnikov Isode Limited June Internet Message Access Protocol Internationalization

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. March 2005

Network Working Group. Category: Experimental September Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications

Network Working Group. Category: Informational SPARTA, Inc. S. Crocker Shinkuro Inc. S. Krishnaswamy SPARTA, Inc. August 2007

Carnegie Mellon University June Internet Message Access Protocol - SORT and THREAD Extensions

Network Working Group Internet-Draft August 2005 Expires: February 2, Atom Link No Follow draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-00.

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4869 Category: Informational May Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec. Status of This Memo

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track Samsung S. Kumar Tech Mahindra Ltd S. Madanapalli Samsung May 2008

Network Working Group. N. Williams Sun Microsystems June 2006

Network Working Group Request for Comments: A. Zinin Alcatel-Lucent March OSPF Out-of-Band Link State Database (LSDB) Resynchronization

September The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) tel Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter Registry. Status of This Memo

Category: Informational October Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-Separated Values (CSV) Files

Intended status: Standards Track August 15, 2008 Expires: February 16, 2009

Network Working Group Request for Comments: Cisco Systems, Inc. December 2005

Category: Standards Track May Transport Layer Security Protocol Compression Methods

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4913 Category: Experimental July 2007

Request for Comments: 4142 Category: Standards Track Nine by Nine November 2005

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track February SIEVE Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest Extensions

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4573 Category: Standard Track July MIME Type Registration for RTP Payload Format for H.

Category: Standards Track LabN Consulting, LLC July 2008

Category: Standards Track October 2006

Request for Comments: 4509 Category: Standards Track May Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs)

Request for Comments: 5079 Category: Standards Track December Rejecting Anonymous Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Category: Experimental June 2006

Request for Comments: 4393 Category: Standards Track March MIME Type Registrations for 3GPP2 Multimedia Files

Network Working Group Internet-Draft August 2005 Expires: February 2, Atom Link No Follow draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-03.

Category: Standards Track August POP URL Scheme. Status of this Memo

draft fanf smtp quickstart 01 : 1/7

Request for Comments: K. Norrman Ericsson June 2006

Network Working Group Internet-Draft October 27, 2007 Intended status: Experimental Expires: April 29, 2008

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4603 Category: Informational Cisco Systems July Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute

Request for Comments: 4314 Obsoletes: 2086 December 2005 Category: Standards Track

Category: Experimental April BinaryTime: An Alternate Format for Representing Date and Time in ASN.1

Request for Comments: 4255 Category: Standards Track SPARTA January Using DNS to Securely Publish Secure Shell (SSH) Key Fingerprints

Category: Standards Track Cisco H. Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks August 2008

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Bootstrap Router MIB

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4242 Category: Standards Track University of Southampton B. Volz Cisco Systems, Inc.

Category: Standards Track Redback Networks June 2008

Network Working Group Internet-Draft January 25, 2006 Expires: July 29, Feed Rank draft-snell-atompub-feed-index-05.txt. Status of this Memo

Network Working Group Request for Comments: February 2006

Transcription:

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5161 Category: Standards Track A. Gulbrandsen, Ed. Oryx Mail Systems GmbH A. Melnikov, Ed. Isode Limited March 2008 The IMAP ENABLE Extension Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract Most IMAP extensions are used by the client when it wants to and the server supports it. However, a few extensions require the server to know whether a client supports that extension. The ENABLE extension allows an IMAP client to say which extensions it supports. 1. Overview Several IMAP extensions allow the server to return unsolicited responses specific to these extensions in certain circumstances. However, servers cannot send those unsolicited responses until they know that the clients support such extensions and thus won t choke on the extension response data. Up until now, extensions have typically stated that a server cannot send the unsolicited responses until after the client has used a command with the extension data (i.e., at that point the server knows the client is aware of the extension). CONDSTORE ([RFC4551]), ANNOTATE ([ANNOTATE]), and some extensions under consideration at the moment use various commands to enable server extensions. For example, CONDSTORE uses a SELECT or FETCH parameter, and ANNOTATE uses a side effect of FETCH. The ENABLE extension provides an explicit indication from the client that it supports particular extensions. This is done using a new ENABLE command. An IMAP server that supports ENABLE advertises this by including the word ENABLE in its capability list. Gulbrandsen & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 1]

Most IMAP extensions do not require the client to enable the extension in any way. 2. Conventions Used in This Document 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]. Formal syntax is defined by [RFC5234] and [RFC3501]. Example lines prefaced by "C:" are sent by the client and ones prefaced by "S:" by the server. The five characters [...] means that something has been elided. 3. Protocol Changes 3.1. The ENABLE Command Arguments: capability names Result: OK: Relevant capabilities enabled BAD: No arguments, or syntax error in an argument The ENABLE command takes a list of capability names, and requests the server to enable the named extensions. Once enabled using ENABLE, each extension remains active until the IMAP connection is closed. For each argument, the server does the following: - If the argument is not an extension known to the server, the server MUST ignore the argument. - If the argument is an extension known to the server, and it is not specifically permitted to be enabled using ENABLE, the server MUST ignore the argument. (Note that knowing about an extension doesn t necessarily imply supporting that extension.) - If the argument is an extension that is supported by the server and that needs to be enabled, the server MUST enable the extension for the duration of the connection. At present, this applies only to CONDSTORE ([RFC4551]). Note that once an extension is enabled, there is no way to disable it. If the ENABLE command is successful, the server MUST send an untagged ENABLED response (see Section 3.2). Gulbrandsen & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 2]

Clients SHOULD only include extensions that need to be enabled by the server. At the time of publication, CONDSTORE is the only such extension (i.e., ENABLE CONDSTORE is an additional "CONDSTORE enabling command" as defined in [RFC4551]). Future RFCs may add to this list. The ENABLE command is only valid in the authenticated state (see [RFC3501]), before any mailbox is selected. Clients MUST NOT issue ENABLE once they SELECT/EXAMINE a mailbox; however, server implementations don t have to check that no mailbox is selected or was previously selected during the duration of a connection. The ENABLE command can be issued multiple times in a session. It is additive; i.e., "ENABLE a b", followed by "ENABLE c" is the same as a single command "ENABLE a b c". When multiple ENABLE commands are issued, each corresponding ENABLED response SHOULD only contain extensions enabled by the corresponding ENABLE command. There are no limitations on pipelining ENABLE. For example, it is possible to send ENABLE and then immediately SELECT, or a LOGIN immediately followed by ENABLE. The server MUST NOT change the CAPABILITY list as a result of executing ENABLE; i.e., a CAPABILITY command issued right after an ENABLE command MUST list the same capabilities as a CAPABILITY command issued before the ENABLE command. This is demonstrated in the following example: C: t1 CAPABILITY S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 ID LITERAL+ ENABLE X-GOOD-IDEA S: t1 OK foo C: t2 ENABLE CONDSTORE X-GOOD-IDEA S: * ENABLED X-GOOD-IDEA S: t2 OK foo C: t3 CAPABILITY S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 ID LITERAL+ ENABLE X-GOOD-IDEA S: t3 OK foo again In the following example, the client enables CONDSTORE: C: a1 ENABLE CONDSTORE S: * ENABLED CONDSTORE S: a1 OK Conditional Store enabled Gulbrandsen & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 3]

3.2. The ENABLED Response Contents: capability listing The ENABLED response occurs as a result of an ENABLE command. The capability listing contains a space-separated listing of capability names that the server supports and that were successfully enabled. The ENABLED response may contain no capabilities, which means that no extensions listed by the client were successfully enabled. 3.3. Note to Designers of Extensions That May Use the ENABLE Command Designers of IMAP extensions are discouraged from creating extensions that require ENABLE unless there is no good alternative design. Specifically, extensions that cause potentially incompatible behavior changes to deployed server responses (and thus benefit from ENABLE) have a higher complexity cost than extensions that do not. 4. Formal Syntax The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [RFC5234] including the core rules in Appendix B.1. [RFC3501] defines the non-terminals "capability" and "command-any". Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion. capability command-any =/ "ENABLE" =/ "ENABLE" 1*(SP capability) response-data =/ "*" SP enable-data CRLF enable-data = "ENABLED" *(SP capability) 5. Security Considerations It is believed that this extension doesn t add any security considerations that are not already present in the base IMAP protocol [RFC3501]. 6. IANA Considerations The IANA has added ENABLE to the IMAP4 Capabilities Registry. Gulbrandsen & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 4]

7. Acknowledgments The editors would like to thank Randy Gellens, Chris Newman, Peter Coates, Dave Cridland, Mark Crispin, Ned Freed, Dan Karp, Cyrus Daboo, Ken Murchison, and Eric Burger for comments and corrections. However, this doesn t necessarily mean that they endorse this extension, agree with all details, or are responsible for errors introduced by the editors. 8. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003. [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. [RFC4551] Melnikov, A. and S. Hole, "IMAP Extension for Conditional STORE Operation or Quick Flag Changes Resynchronization", RFC 4551, June 2006. 9. Informative References [ANNOTATE] Daboo, C. and R. Gellens, "IMAP ANNOTATE Extension", Work in Progress, August 2006. Gulbrandsen & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 5]

Editors Addresses Arnt Gulbrandsen Oryx Mail Systems GmbH Schweppermannstr. 8 D-81671 Muenchen Germany Fax: +49 89 4502 9758 EMail: arnt@oryx.com Alexey Melnikov Isode Ltd 5 Castle Business Village 36 Station Road Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX UK EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com Gulbrandsen & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 6]

Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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. Gulbrandsen & Melnikov Standards Track [Page 7]