Subject: [lemonade] Draft Meeting Minutes for Monday

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:19:02 -0500

Given the folks coming on Wednesday that missed Monday, here is a more raw
form of the minutes.

Thanks to Tony for running the Jabber log and cleaning them up for the
minutes.

Slides are at
http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/lemonade/slides61/index.html

Agenda Bashing (Chairs)	5 min

 [12:04:57] 	 agenda was modified to accommodate those who could be here
on Monday, not on wed, and vice versa
[12:06:09] 	 today: mms mapping, future deliv, urlauth, burl, catenate,
quick reconect; nonWG: mobile sync, clearidle, message filter
[12:06:28] 	 bash: please move quick reconnect to wed
[12:07:00] 	 wed agenda: Mon recap, profile & goals, quick reconnect,
transcoding discussion (channel)
[12:07:14] 	 sold

Charter & Liaisons (Chairs)	5 min
[12:07:18] 	 status update: 
[12:08:27] 	 charter review: goals, imap ext for vm playback, submit
extensions for forwarding, exts for diverse endpoints, server to server
notif. protocol (not server to client), translation to/from other messaging
systems
[12:08:38] 	 summary of deliverables
[12:10:20] 	 recap of interim meeting in Vancouver
[12:11:54] 	 objectives: various drafts have moved forward, and some
gone to LC, hopefully rest to WGLC before next ietf
[12:13:04] 	 WGLC status: server to server notif reqts: closed; mms
mapping: issues to be resolved; future delivery: discussed today; goals:
discussed on Wed

MMS Mapping (Randy)	10 min

[12:13:33] 	 randy gellens: mms/email mapping
[12:14:15] 	 01 includes explicit vpim support vs. 00
[12:15:22] 	 open issue: specifies the use of precedence: Bulk header;
do we need it? Do we keep it? Standardize it?
[12:19:16] 	 discussion pro & con, mild support both ways
[12:24:57] 	 resolution of 'precedence: bulk' was to leave it since it
is in the registry
[12:21:18] 	 open issue #2: sender address hiding using x-anonymous
extension to MAIL FROM
[12:22:53] 	 support for standardizing the anon facility separately
[12:23:58] 	 resolution: remove it, for possible future standardization

Future Delivery (Greg) 	

[12:24:37] 	 Greg Vaudreuil: future delivery
[12:24:57] 	 issues: 1*9digit; resolution leave it
[12:25:51] 	 issue #2: auth reqt is redundant
[12:27:56] 	 resolution: leave it to smtp-submit to move forward and
remove from this doc, change smtp-submit reference to new doc (currently in
queues)
[12:28:12] 	 issue #3: fix reference to rfc 2119 language
[12:28:32] 	 issue #4: is there a minimum futuredeliver time? does the
server need to announce it?
[12:29:26] 	 no, doesn't add any real value
[12:30:16] 	 issue #6: add DOS wording to security reqts. Chris Newman
is volunteering to review it closely
[12:30:35] 	 issue #5: odd cases in max delivery interval; 0, 9999999999
[12:31:12] 	 resolution: require the advertisement
[12:31:28] 	 various nits
[12:31:23] 	 Randy: why require advertisement? Answer: consistency
[12:34:40] 	 new drafts for mms and future delivery will come out soon
(next week)

Pull Documents	URLAUTH (Chris) 	5 min

[12:34:59] 	 chris newman: urlauth, burl, catenate
[12:36:30] 	 is urlauth ready for wglc? no, there were some comments on
the list that haven't yet been resolved 
[12:37:03] 	 plus the "anonymous" issue

Pull Documents	BURL (Chris) 	10 min

[12:37:34] 	 burl: issue: need a rev for reference updates
[12:37:45] 	 then last call
[12:38:29] 	 Glenn to Ted: any issues on urlauth? there has been a draft
since his comments were sent
[12:38:48] 	 Glenn will ping mark 

Pull Documents	CATENATE (Pete) 	5 min

[12:38:54] 	 pete resnick: catenate
[12:39:17] 	 needs examples, plus something on what to do with response
codes
[12:40:39] 	 2119 language? pete says 2119 language isn't necessarily
needed 
[12:41:40] 	 randy & chris: need it for interop
[12:42:56] 	 alexi melnikov: I agree with Randy & Chris
[12:45:26] 	 discussion on i18n problems with text
[12:45:31] 	 chris -- fine as is
[12:46:12] 	 on to examples: how to deal w/ drafts? other use cases
[12:46:59] 	 clarification to pete on what examples go in catenate vs.
profile doc
[12:49:49] 	 greg: why do we have catenate at all? don't urlauth and
burl cover it?
[12:51:10] 	 chris: catenate allows you to put copy into sent folder and
send it
[12:51:42] 	 pete: different algorithms if you have annotations, and
don't
[12:52:16] 	 amelnikov: Catenate also allows to strip attachments and
edit a draft multiple times
[12:52:18] 	 chris: forward without download as well as saving file copy
[12:52:49] 	 greg: two ways to do same thing? bothers him. catenate
using burl, vs. bdat, bdat, burl
[12:53:16] 	 chris/pete: lemonade will require catenate, but not bdat
[12:53:33] 	 greg: figured bdat WOULD be required
[12:55:02] 	 chris/randy: yes, there will be more than one way to do the
same thing
[12:55:48] 	 philip g.: another complexity is alexey's draft to request
email address for a particular folder
[12:56:14] 	 michael wener: <<missed it>>
[12:56:50] 	 pete: wordsmithed document in real time
[12:58:29] 	 greg: what's preferred way to do fcc? catenate with burl?
[12:58:33] 	 chris: yes
[12:59:30] 	 greg: if do future delivery submission, is burl resolved
now or then?
[13:03:16] 	 chris: the URL was resolved before the submit server sends
an error response.
[13:01:27] 	 pete: will go back to editing for next draft
[13:02:05] 	 pete: call for examples to provide for the doc
[13:03:04] 	 amelnikov: I can write some examples for Pete
[13:03:23] 	 send them to pete
[13:04:24] 	 pete: profile will say: here's how to use catenate to
forward w/o download. and that use of annotation would make forward w/o
download more efficient, but it is not required by the profile, and may
describe how to do so.
[13:04:51] 	 sub use case of editing drafts can be made more efficient
with annotations

Non-Working Group Items: checkpoint / clearidle (Michael)

[13:05:22] 	 next: non-work group items
[13:05:57] 	 michael wener: checkpoint/clearidle
[13:06:52] 	 goal: provide quasi-real-time reception of server state
change; minimize client costs of full sync; minimize protocol changes;
obviates RECONNECT, and server-to-client-notifications
[13:07:53] 	 current drafts don't provide clear description on how to
use two together -- need both, and how play together could part of lemonade
profile
[13:08:43] 	 checkpoint: ack'd delivery of imap responses, extends idle,
subsumes reconnect
[13:09:23] 	 resync avoidance: avoid missed events; uses account based
queuing
[13:10:11] 	 defines a 2-session access scenario for imap client;
sessions are mutually aware
[13:10:46] 	 uses imapurl to export uid state between sessions
[13:11:46] 	 checkpoint: supports both highly connected & lightly
connected
[13:12:23] 	 idle context is a way of scoping both: queue life (queue is
self cleaning) & responses w/ new syntax
[13:13:39] 	 pete: questions where costs of connection are? mike: both
tcp level and tls level
[13:15:27] 	 randy: questions highly vs. lightly connectedness. mike:
means how often have active connection
[13:17:38] 	 clearidle: provide unsolicited responses during IDLE (when
in auth state) -- uses IMAPURL used to identify folders & uids -- allows
multiple folders to be reviewed covers all state change need to avoid a full
sync at reconnect -- all folders, folder state, mail state, expunges
[13:18:41] 	 the two combined improves mobile mail experience:
checkpoing/clearidle: user perceived smoothing of mail reception; msgfilter:
focusing on what mail is of interest to user
[13:19:47] 	 cyrus: can you limit updates to "folders of interest"? 
[13:20:45] 	 mike: it's a problem with no magic wand, can use
aggregation -- needs some work
[13:22:01] 	 discussion genericizing to general server-to-client
notification
[13:22:19] 	 comments about xmpp doing it, reference to jep #60
[13:23:52] 	 clamor
[13:25:41] 	 eric: discussion of inband vs. out-of-band models; sip vs.
xmpp; imap was not built to do it; we should use the right kind of
connection to do notification and not mix it in to imap
[13:26:34] 	 dave crocker: notification has 2 pieces -- object and
transfer -- we need to specify the object to be sent and now how it's sent
[13:27:10] 	 glen: we want reqts of what needs to be transferred from
server to client
[13:27:27] 	 mike: clearidle specifies content
[13:28:42] 	 greg: still interested specifically in imapish events since
last connect or checkpoint

Non-Working Group Items: msgfilter (Michael)
 
[13:29:34] 	 on to msgfilter
[13:29:58] 	 goal is to constrain what events are seen
[13:30:15] 	 or, what messages are seen
[13:30:44] 	 use case #1: mail after a certain date; #2 only mail from
[email-masked]
[13:31:43] 	 some syntax borrowed from old window/view drafts
[13:32:13] 	 command: FILTER SET; response: FILTER SET; response code:
FILTERED
[13:33:57] 	 transient mode: specify criteria via SEARCH, UID
ADD/REMOVE; easy cleanup: self cleaning; filters are definitive
[13:34:42] 	 non-transient mode: protocol opaque tag 
[13:36:04] 	 filters build dynamically (incrementally); rules have
precedence TAG, SEARCH, UID ADD/REMOVE
[13:37:18] 	 cyrus: window had scalability problems
[13:37:35] 	 mike: same scalability problems as search command
[13:39:11] 	 cyrus: serious problems with redefining sequence numbers on
the fly
[13:40:36] 	 mike: burden of maintaining state borne by server, but
mitigated by trancience
[13:43:54] 	 corby: what happens with collected state changes with
msgfilter vis-a-vis checkpoint
[13:44:01] 	 mike: a problem

Next Steps & Milestones	10 min

[13:44:13] 	 eric: what's next
[13:44:46] 	 updated drafts by December 1 (profile, reconnect); wglc for
pull trio
[13:45:13] 	 we're done for the day -- to be continued on Wednesday

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:14:34 -0800 (PST)

> [12:37:03] 	 plus the "anonymous" issue

Could someone elaborate on this?  I thought that I had dealt with all 
pending issues from the WG; AFAIK the only remaining question was whether 
it would be alright for me to include anonymous and authuser again.

If there is something else that needs my attention prior to WGLC, I'd 
appreciate a reminder as to what it is, since I apparently have totally 
forgotten about it.  Thanks.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.