Internet DRAFT - draft-maes-proposed-lemonade-profile-phase2
draft-maes-proposed-lemonade-profile-phase2
LEMONADE Working Group S. Maes
Internet-Draft Oracle
Expires: July 23, 2006 Editors to be updated as document
becomes IETF WG draft
January 19, 2006
Proposed initial version of LEMONADE profile phase 2
draft-maes-proposed-lemonade-profile-phase2-00.txt
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 July 23, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document proposes an initial draft for LEMONADE profile phase 2.
It is based on a combination of the content of LEMONADE profile [4]
and the OMA MEM realization internet draft [21] initially considered
for internet draft publication as information or standard track by
LEMONADE.
This also provides an initial proposal on how to divide the
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
specification work between OMA MEM and LEMONADE for a LEMONADE
realization of the OMA MEM enabler.
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 RFC 2119 [1].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LEMONADE Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OMA MEM Requirement document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. OMA MEM Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. OMA MEM Deployment Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. OMA MEM proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IETF LEMONADE Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. LEMONADE Profile Phase 2 logical architecture . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Relationship between the OMA MEM and LEMONADE logical
architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE
compliant servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2.1. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE
enhanced IMAP servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-IMAP
servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Filters and server to client notifications and LEMONADE . . . 15
10. Analysis of Lemonade Technology Support of OMA MEM enabler . . 17
11. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13. Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 31
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
1. Introduction
This document describes an initial proposal for the LEMONADE profile
phase 2. It is based on LEMONADE profile [4] with extensions to
provide in the view of LEMONADE the support to a realization of OMA
mobile email enabler (MEM) using Internet Mail protocols defined by
the IETF. Many of these protocols have been enhanced by the LEMONADE
work group for use in the mobile environment and are summarized in
the LEMONADE profile [4]. This document also shows how the
requirements captured in OMA MEM Requirement document [3] and
mechanisms of the OMA MEM Architecture [2] can be satisfied from a
Lemonade point of view.
This document contains the current view of the work. It refers to
stable specifications and work in progress. As the work progress, it
is expected that this document will evolve and be updated
accordingly.
<Editor's note: As a result some of the statements about some
specification may not yet supported by the references. When it is
the case, these specifications are expected to be be updated.>
<Editor's note: Caveats to be removed and / or updated when work
stabilizes.>
Also, it is to be noted that this document solely describes
normatively the LEMONADE profile phase 2. It discusses LEMONADE
understanding of the work in progress at OMA MEM ([3] and [2] but
does not provide a normative reading of these documents. Readers
MUST refer to the open mobiel alliance web site for normative
references on the Mobile Email Enabler (OMA MEM). LEMONADE assumes
that the LEMONADE profile phase 2 can be used as basis for an OMA
technical specification of a realization based on LEMONADE of the OMA
MEM enabler.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
2. LEMONADE Profile
LEMONADE profile phase 2 incorporates normatively the LEMONADE
profile [4].
<Editor's note: The LEMONADE profile is currently included by
reference. As it stabilizes as RFC, the text will be explicitly
included and changes to the text will be explicitly made inline.>
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
3. OMA MEM Requirement document
The OMA MEM activity has collected a set of use cases and derived
requirements for a mobile email enabler (MEM). the resulting work is
summarized in OMA MEM Requirement document [3]. Some requirements
relates to email protocols, some involve other OMA technologies
outside the scope of IETF and some relate to implementations and
normative interoperability statements for clients and servers.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
4. OMA MEM Architecture
The OMA MEM activity has derived a logical architecture from the
requirements and use cases described in [3]. The logical
architecture, its elements and interfaces and the notations that it
uses can be found in [2].
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
5. OMA MEM Deployment Issues
The OMA MEM Architecture document [2] further identifies deployment
models.
Certain of these deployment models are not what IETF has
conventionally modeled. They require special attention to end-to-end
security aspects and may warrant introduction of additional security
measures (e.g. object level encryption).
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
6. OMA MEM proxy
The OMA MEM Architecture document [2] identifies OMA MEM server
proxies as server components that may be deployed ahead of firewalls
to facilitate traversal of firewalls.
Both IMAP and SMTP generally are compatible with proxies between the
client and the server. Such proxies may disrupt end-to-end
encryption, with the transport-level encryption ending at the proxy
and re-generating from the proxy to the server. Again this may
require additional security measures like object level encryption.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
7. IETF LEMONADE Architecture
This section gives a brief introduction to the LEMONADE Architecture.
The IETF LEMONADE activity has derived a LEMONADE profile [4] with
the logical architecture represented in Figure 1, where arrows
indicate content flows.
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol |
| ___|______
| | | _____
__v__ IMAP | LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
| |<----------->| IMAP |<---------------| MTA |
| MUA |- | Store | |_____|
|_____| \ |__________|
\ |
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____
\ | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
---->| Submit |--------------->| MTA |
| Server | |_____|
|__________|
Figure 1: LEMONADE logical architecture
The LEMONADE profile phase 2 assumes:
o IMAP protocol [5] including LEMONADE profile extensions [4]
o SUBMIT protocol (SMTP [7], ...) including LEMONADE profile
extensions
o LEMONADE profile compliant IMAP store. connected to MTA (Mail
Transfer Agent) via ESMTP [6]
o LEMONADE profile compliant Submit server. connected to MTA via
ESMTP
o Lemonade profile message store / submit server protocols (URLAUTH)
(see [4]).
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
o Outband server to client notifications relying on external
notification mechanisms (and notification protocols) that may be
out of scope of the LEMONADE profile phase 2.
o A LEMONADE aware MUA (Mail User Agent). While use of outband
notification is described in the LEMONADE profile phase 2, support
for the underlying notifications mechanisms/protocols is out of
scope of the LEMONADE specifications.
Further details on the IETF email protcol stack and architecture can
be found in [8]
Note that in Figure 1 the IMAP server and Submit server are
represented connected to MTAs (Mail Transfer Agents) via ESMTP [6].
This is not really essential. It could as well be X.400 so long as
the message is in the store in an onternet form.
OMA MEM identifies other functionalities. These are considered as
out of scope of the LEMONADE work and will need to be specified by
OMA MEM.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
8. LEMONADE Profile Phase 2 logical architecture
This section details the LEMONADE profile phase 2 logical
architecture. Thsi architecture is also expected to support the OMA
MEM logical Architecture.
8.1. Relationship between the OMA MEM and LEMONADE logical
architectures
Figure 2 illustrates the mapping of the IETF LEMONADE logical
architecture on the OMA MEM logical architecture.
_____________________
| Other_Mob. Enablers |
| |--------------| |
_________| Notification | |
| | | Mechanism | |
| | |______________| |
|Notif. |____________^________|
|Protocol ______|__________
ME-4 | | ___|_ME-3_ |
___|____ | | | | _____
| __v__ | IMAP | | LEMONADE | | ESMTP | |
|| |<----------->| IMAP |<-----------| MTA |
|| MUA || ME-2a | | Store | | |_____|
||_____||\ME-1 | |__________| |
| MEM | \ | | |
| Client| \ | |URLAUTH |
|_______| \SUBMIT | |
\ | ____v_____ |
\ | | | | _____
\ | | LEMONADE | | ESMTP | |
---->| Submit |----------->| MTA |
ME-2b | | Server | | |_____|
| |__________| |
|MEM Email |
|Server Server|
|_________________|
^
|ME-5
|
Figure 2: Mapping of LEMONADE profile phase 2 logical architecture
onto the OMA MEM logical architecture.
As described in Section 7, the LEMONADE profile phase 2 assumes
LEMONADE profile phase 2 compliant IMAP stores and Submit servers.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
Because the LEMONADE profile phase 2 extends the IMAP store and the
submit server, the mobile enablement of email provided by the
LEMONADE profile phase 2 is directly provided in these server.
Mapped to OMA MEM logical architecture, for the case considered and
specified by the LEMONADE profile phase 2, the MEM server and email
server logically combined. They are however split into distinct
LEMONADE message store and LEMONADE submit server. The OMA MEM
interfaces ME-2 ([2]) consists of two interfaces ME-2a and ME-2b
associated respectively to IMAP extended according to the LEMONADE
profile phase 2 and SUBMIT extended according to the LEMONADE profile
phase 2.
The MUA is part of the MEM client.
External notifications mechanism can be part of the other OMA enabler
specified by OMA (or other activities).
8.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE compliant
servers
The OMA MEM activity is not limited to enabling Lemonade compliant
servers. It explicitly identifies the need to support other
backends.
8.2.1. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-LEMONADE enhanced IMAP
servers
Figure 3 illustrates the case of IMAP servers that are not (yet)
LEMONADE compliant / enhanced with LEMONADE. In such case, the I2
interface between the MEM server components and the IMAP store and
submit server are IMAP and SUBMIT.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol |
| ___|______ _____________
| | LEMONADE | | | _____
__v__ IMAP | MEM | IMAP |NON-LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
| |<--------->|Enabler |<------>|IMAP |<----->| MTA |
| MUA |\ ME-2a | Server | |Store | |_____|
|_____| \ |__________| |_____________|
\ |
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____ _____________
\ | | | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | SUBMIT |NON-LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
-->| MEM | |Submit | | |
| Enabler |------->|Server |------>| MTA |
ME-2b | Server | | | |_____|
|__________| |_____________|
Figure 3: Architecture to support non-LEMONADE enhanced IMAP servers
with a LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM enabler.
8.2.2. LEMONADE realization of OMA MEM with non-IMAP servers
Figure 4 illustrates the cases where the message store and submit
servers are not IMAP store or submit servers. They may be POP3
servers or other proprietary message stores.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol |
| ___|______ _____________
| | LEMONADE | | | _____
__v__ IMAP | MEM | I2 |Proprietary | ESMTP | |
| |<--------->|Enabler |<------>|Message |<----->| MTA |
| MUA |\ ME-2a | Server | |Store | |_____|
|_____| \ |__________| |_____________|
\ |
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____ _____________
\ | | | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | I2 |Proprietary | ESMTP | |
-->| MEM | |Submit | | |
| Enabler |------->|Server |------>| MTA |
ME-2b | Server | | | |_____|
|__________| |_____________|
Figure 4: Architecture to support non-IMAP servers with a LEMONADE
realization of OMA MEM enabler.
I2 designates proprietary adapters to the backends. They may invoved
functions performed in the message stores or submit server as well as
in the MEM enabler server.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
9. Filters and server to client notifications and LEMONADE
OMA MEM RD [3] and AD [2] emphasize the need to provide mechanisms
for server to client notifications of email events and filtering.
Figure 5 illustrates how notification and filterings are introduced
in LEMONADE profile phase 2.
______________
| |
_________| Notification |
| | Mechanism |
| |______________|
|Notif. ^
|Protocol -------\ _|_
| ______| ___\>|NF|____
| | | ---- | _____
__v__| IMAP |__ LEMONADE |___ ESMTP __| |
| |<-------->|VF| IMAP |DF |<--------|AF| MTA |
| MUA |\ ME-2a |-- Store |-^- --|_____|
|_____| \ |_____________| |
\_\_______________|_______|
\ |URLAUTH
\SUBMIT |
\ ____v_____
\ | | _____
\ | LEMONADE | ESMTP | |
---->| Submit |--------------->| MTA |
ME-2b | Server | |_____|
|__________|
Figure 5: Filtering mechanism defined in LEMONADE architecture
In Figure 5, four categories of filters are defined:
o AF: Administrative Filters - Set up by email service provider. AF
are typically not configured by the user and set to apply policies
content filtering, virus protection, spam filtering etc...
o DF: Deposit Filters - Filters that are executed on deposit of new
emails. They can be defined as SIEVE filters [9]. They can
include vacation notices.
o VF: View Filters - Filters that define which emails are visible to
the MUA. View filters can be defined as virtual folders [10] as
described in [11].
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
o NF: Notification Filters - Filters that define for what email
server event an outband notification is sent to the client.
The filters are manageable from the MUA:
o NF and DF: via SIEVE management protocol <Editor's note: Still to
be defined>
o VF: via LFILTER as virtual folder as defined in [11]
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
10. Analysis of Lemonade Technology Support of OMA MEM enabler
The OMA MEM AD [2] analyzes the technical features needed to support
its requirements [3]. The present section discussed how these are
supported or expected to be supported by the LEMONADE profile phase
2.
<Editor's note: As the work expands, this section will be restructure
to normatively describe the additions to the LEMONADE profile [4]
that would not be added inline in section Section 2
In the present section we explain how these features extracted from
the OMA MEM AD are supported with a LEMONADE realization.
Items maked as ** indicate how it is currently thought that this is
addressed by LEMONADE. ++ refers to OMA aspects. -- refers to issues
that are not within the scope of LEMONADE specifications or that are
still unresolved at the level of LEMONADE.
1. Mechanisms to align, fetch and update email messages between the
MEM client and the email server via the MEM server. The mobile
email enabler focuses solely on the interaction between the MEM
client and MEM server.
* ** This is supported by IMAP base capabilities.
2. Mechanisms for event-based server to client alignment:
* Defines the relationship between notification mechanisms and
MEM protocol.
* ** This is supported by server to client notifications [11]
+ To minimize the latency observed for email events on the
email server to be reflected in the MEM client.
+ To avoid unnecessary polling and requests from the MEM
clients:
- To reduce the total amount of data to be exchanged
between MEM server and client, e.g. by allowing the MEM
client to select which messages to align.
- To reduce the amount of transactions.
* Needs to cope with possible lost or delayed notifications
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
* ** This is supported by ensuring that the LEMONADE protocol
does not require that the notification have been received by
the MUA.
* Support in-band (ME-1/ME-2 exchanges) and out-band
notifications (Exchanged via ME-3/ME-4 via other enablers).
* ** In-band notifications are supported by IMAP IDLE [12]
acting on the virtual folder defined by VF
* ** Outband notifications are generated by SIEVE bound (See
also [22]) to message store events [13] and acting on the
virtual folder defined by VF.
+ Specified in ways that are network transport independent
but may contain some bindings to particular notification
channels (e.g. SMS binary, WAP Push, SIP Notification,
...)
+ When the MEM client is connected to the MEM server, only
inband notifications shall take place
* Defines notification payload for inband and outband
mechanisms.
* ** For inband this is defined by IMAP IDLE
* ++ For outband this is specified by server to client
notifications [11]. It is expected to be based on OMA EMN
server to client notifications [14] plus possible extensions.
* Server-side filtering to decide which messages will be
accessible by the MEM client.
+ Filtering results into the following logical types:
+ ** This is achieved by usage of view filters defined as
virtual folders, SIEVE binding to message store events.
- Type A: Messages filtered out and not accessible by the
MEM client (no notification, no header access, no
access)
- ** Achieved via VF as view filter defined as virtual
folder. No notification will affect events related to
these messages by restricting that NF applies only on
the view. Otherwise, NF and VF must be synchronized.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
- Type B: Messages that are accessible by the MEM client
but no outband notification takes place. Inband
notification might however take place if MEM client is
already connected to MEM server.
- ** Achieved via VF as view filter defined as virtual
folder. NF is then set to suppress (i.e. not produce)
notifications even when tehse messages are made
available by VF.
- Type C: Messages that are accessible by the MEM client
for which notifications (outband or inband) are always
sent to the MEM client.
- ** Achieved via NF using SIEVE and bindings to messages
store events.
+ Notions of Filters:
- View filters: Filters that determine which email
messages are of type B and C or A
- ** VF is defined as as virtual folder. This may be
updated from the client via LFILTER mechanisms [11].
- Notification filters: Filters that determine which
email messages are of type C or B
- Event filters: Filters that determines what events are
to be notified to the client
+ Mechanisms to allow the user to update the filters from
the MEM client
+ ** This can be achieved by LFILTER.
3. Client-side download and storage preferences:
* Manage which of the accessible messages are maintained on MEM
client
* ** This is achieved via the view filter defined as virtual
folder.
* -- From a LEMONADE point of view, client specific additional
aspects are left to specifications of the MEM client
implementations or to OMA MEM specifications (out of scope of
LEMONADE): the user may set local client preferences to cache
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
less than their view filter. For example, the client may
cache only the last N days while receiving view updates on
all messages within the "urgent" view.
* Manage which parts are maintained on MEM client
* ** This is achieved by IMAP
* -- Aspects are left to specifications of the MEM client
implementations or to OMA MEM specifications (out of scope of
LEMONADE).
* Configurable by user
* -- This is left to specifications of the MEM client
implementations or to OMA MEM specifications (out of scope of
LEMONADE).
* MEM client may support encrypting and password protecting the
messages.
* -- This is left to specifications of the MEM client
implementations or to OMA MEM specifications (out of scope of
LEMONADE).
4. Client-side event filtering:
* Local message store delete: ability to delete email message
from the MEM client view while retaining the message on the
email server. Some information may be passed to the MEM
server.
* -- This is left to specifications of the MEM client
implementations (out of scope of LEMONADE).
* Attachment local delete: Ability to delete from the MEM
client the attachment while maintaining the view that an
attachment is available for download from the email server.
* -- This is left to specifications of the MEM client
implementations (out of scope of LEMONADE).
* Remote delete: ability to delete email messages both on the
MEM client and on the email server.
* ** Support by IMAP
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
5. Mechanisms for media conversion
* ** This is supported by CONVERT [15].
* Allows the MEM client to request conversion - including
transcoding - of a body part or attachment from the MEM
server when the email message part is fetched from the
server.
+ The client may request conversion to a specific format/
size, or
+ The client may request conversion to a server-selected
format/size - where the server decides the format/size
credentials based on any knowledge (e.g. client
capabilities, user preferences) it may have.
* Conversion does not alter the messages in the email server.
6. Mechanisms for MEM client to submit email to the MEM server.
* ** This is achieved by SMTP - Submit
* Mechanism to support remote message assembly on the MEM
server based on email parts (body, address fields and
attachments) that may not have been downloaded and others
that may have been locally created or may have been
downloaded and edited.
* This is supported by LEMONADE profile trio: BURL, CATENATE,
URLAUTH [4]
* It may be desirable to support just uploading the differences
of the body parts (e.g. address fields).
* -- This may be achievable by IMAP URL extended with byte
range (partial) [16].
* -- Differences on address fields may require SMTP extensions.
This is under discussion.
7. Mechanisms to allow configuration and exchange of settings
between the client and the server inband or outband:
* Server to client: e.g. server ID, account name, policies, ...
* ++ This is achievable by OMA DM / CP <Editor's note: Add
references>
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
* ** Most configuration beyond bootstrap is also achievable via
mailbox annotations <Editor's note: Add references>
* Client to server: e.g. rules filters vacation notices,
notification channel, ...
* ** A remote management protocol is to be defined for DF and
NF that provide SIEVE management.
* ** SETPREFS/GETPREFS for server to client notifications [11]
8. Mechanisms to optimize bandwidth and/or delays on any data
exchanges
* ** This is addressed by IMAP BINARY, TLS Compression and LZIP
compression. Exact usage guidelines are still under
development
9. Mechanisms for encryption of the email data exchanged between
the email server and the MEM client.
* ** This is supported by TLS. Note TLS just protects between
the MEM client and the MEM server (or may be just to the MEM
proxy in front of the MEM server if there is one).
* The enabler shall support data remaining encrypted at all
times even if the MEM server is deployed outside the email
server domain.
* -- This may require object level encryption under some
circumstances (e.g. to support deployment models where proxy
/ MEM server outside email service provider domain). This is
still under discussion.
* The mechanism should also be applicable to notifications if
they carry information worth protecting.
* ** The current thought is to reduce the notifications to the
exchange of information that may not have to be encrypted.
This is still work in progress.
10. Mechanisms for the MEM client to determine the capabilities of
the server.
* ** This can be supported by CAPABILITY, Mailbox annotations.
The notion of Sieve Capabilities description is also work in
progress.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
11. Mechanisms to manage sessions:
* ** Covert by Quick Reconnect [17]
* Handling connectivity issues
+ E.g. dealing with IP address changes
+ E.g. re-establish secure connection
* E.g. suspend and resume minimizing data exchange duplication
12. Capability to support the different deployment models in
appendix of OMA MEM AD [2]
* Mobile email must be usable in the presence of firewalls and
intermediaries found in mobile networks.
* ** This is discussed in [20]
* ** Best practices exist [19].
* -- This may require presence of LEMONADE proxy MEM servers
(i.e. Lemonade enhanced IMAP or Submit proxies)
* -- This may require the use of HTTP binding [18]
13. Mechanisms to ensure integrity of the email data exchanged
between the email server and the MEM client.
* ** This is supported by TLS with the TLS limitations pointed
out above for confidentiality <Editor's note: Add
references>.
14. Mechanisms for mutual authentication of the MEM client and the
MEM server.
* ** This is supported by TLS <Editor's note: Add references>.
15. Mechanism to allow the MEM client to send recall request to the
email server via the MEM server.
* -- This is a feature that we believe can not easily be
satisfied for internet email. We note that some proposals
have been made for addressing this with extensions to the
MSGTRAK work <Editor's note: Add references>.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
16. Mechanisms to sign data exchanged between MEM client and MEM
server.
* ** This is supported by TLS with the TLS limitations
mentioned above <Editor's note: Add references> and providing
that having a signature of the MEM server or MEM proxy is
somehow meaningful.
17. Mechanisms to allow the MEM client to work off line or in
intermittent connectivity:
* ** This is already built in IMAP
* ** This is addressed by QuickReconnect <Editor's note: Add
references>
* -- This are also aspects left to specifications of the MEM
client implementations (out of scope of LEMONADE).
* Store email and client email event
* Detect network availability
* Send emails and email client events when network connectivity
is available
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
11. Security considerations
This specification provides no security measures beyond those in the
referenced Internet Mail and LEMONADE documents.
We note however the security risks associated to:
o Outband notifications
o Server configuration by client
o Client configuration by server
o Presence of MEM proxy servers
o Presence of MEM servers as intermediaries
o In general the deployment models considered by OMA MEM that are
not conventional IETF deployment models.
o Measures to address the need to traverse firewalls
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
12. IANA considerations
No specific IANA considerations have been identified yet that are not
covered by the different drafts and RFCs included in the realization
described in this document.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
13. Future work
The different drafts and RFCs referenced in thsi document must be
completed.
text will be updated as described in editor's notes
A Lemonade working group LEMONADE profile phase 2 document should be
derived at some point from teh present document.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
14. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges and appreciates the work and comments of the
IETF LEMONADE working group and the OMA MEM working group.
This text was partially co-authored with G. Vaudreuil (Lucent) and
Eric Burger (Excel) and reviewed in detail by them as well as by Fan
Xiaohui (China Mobile - CMCC).
The LEMONADE profile is co-edited with A. Melnikov (Isode).
15. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirements Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[2] "Mobile Email Architecture Document", OMA (Work in Progress),
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/, October 2005.
[3] "Mobile Email RequirementS Document", OMA http://
www.openmobilealliance.org/release_program/docs/RD/
OMA-RD-MobileEmail-V1_0_20051018-C.pdf, Oct 2005.
[4] Maes, S. and A. Melnikov, "LEMONADE profile",
draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-0x (work in progress).
[5] Crispin, M., "IMAP4, Internet Message Access Protocol Version 4
rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[6] Klensin, J., "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1861,
November 1995.
[7] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[8] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture",
draft-crocker-email-arch-0x (work in progress).
[9] "SIEVE WG", http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sieve-
charter.html.
[10] Maes, S. and et Al., "Persistent Search Extensions and Virtual
Folder to the IMAP Protocol", draft-maes-lemonade-vfolder-0x
(work in progress).
[11] Maes, S. and et Al., "Server to Client Notifications and
Filtering",
draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-0x (work in
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
progress).
[12] Leiba, B., "IMAP4 IDLE command", RFC 2177, June 1997.
[13] Newman, C., "Internet Message Store Events",
draft-newman-lemonade-msgevent-0x (work in progress).
[14] "Open Mobile Alliance Email Notification Version 1.0",
OMA http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/docs/EmailNot/OMA-
Push-EMN-V1_0-20020830-C.pdf, August 2002.
[15] Maes, S. and et Al., "CONVERT", draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-0x
(work in progress).
[16] Melnikov, A. and et Al., "IMAP URL Scheme",
draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-0x (work in progress).
[17] Melnikov, A. and et Al., "IMAP4 extension for quick reconnect",
draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-0x (work in progress).
[18] Maes, S. and et Al., "Lemonade HTTP Binding",
draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-0x (work in progress).
[19] Freed, N., "Behavior of and Requirements for Internet
Firewalls", RFC 2979, October 2000.
[20] Maes, S., "Lemonade and the challenges of Intermediaries",
draft-smaes-lemonade-intermediary-challenges-0x (work in
progress).
[21] Maes, S. and G. Parsons, "Realization of OMA Mobile Email (MEM)
Architecture using Internet Mail",
draft-ietf-lemonade-oma-mem-realization-0x (work in progress).
[22] Leiba, B., "Support for Sieve in Internet Message Access
Protocol (IMAP4)", draft-ietf-lemonade-imap-sieve-0x (work in
progress).
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
Authors' Addresses
Stephane H. Maes
Oracle
MS 4op634, 500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94539
USA
Phone: +1-203-300-7786
Email: stephane.maes@oracle.com
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Proposed version LEMONADE profile phase 2 January 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Maes & Editors to be updated as document becomes IETF WG draft Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 31]
