Subject: [lemonade] FW: Draft lemonade Minutes

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:33:55 -0400

And thanks to Greg for these, too!

-----Original Message-----
From: Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:00 PM
To: Eric Burger; Glenn Parsons
Cc: Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)
Subject: Draft lemonade Minutes

-----------------
Lemonade Minutes

Session 1:  Tuesday 10:30-12:30

Note Well Noted.

Lisa Dusseault Volunteered to Jabber Scribe
These minutes taken by Greg Vaudreuil

Agenda:
 - Incoming OMA liaison
 - Profile Phase 2
 - Charter discussion
 - OMA Samurai Seven  (Stephan's p-imap portions)
 - Next Steps

Glenn presented the OMA Liaison from the Mobile Email working sub-group.
The slides of that presentation and the OMA liaison statement are
available on the Lemonade Supplementary web-site at
http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/lemonade The LEMONADE chairs were
invited, and will present three contributions to the OMA MEM meeting
August 8-9.  Placeholder draft responses were submitted to the OMA prior
to this meeting.  Greg Vaudreuil presented a draft liaison statement and
collected various comments not repeated here. The working group agreed
to pursue an interim working group meeting held jointly with MEM,
pending resolution of procedural and scheduling issues.   Further
comments were solicited and received from the mailing list.  A revised
liaison will be submitted via official IETF Liaison channels to the OMA
MEM group.  

The Lemonade charter was discussed, and there was no expressed desire to
make changes. The group agreed to revisit the charter again after the
OMA revised and formalized their requirements and Lemonade participant
digest which requirements are relevant for IETF work. 

The Lemonade goals document is not yet out of the RFC Editors queue, and
it is already well out-of-date.  The group discussed, but found no
reason to re-open this discussion.  It remains useful as background, but
the charter has replaced the document as the official documentation of
accepted goals. Any additional use-cases needed will be incorporated
into the profile document itself.

The chairs presented the set of candidate standards to include in
Lemonade phase 1.  Of note:
	- Quick Reconnect is now considered stable and will be in
Phase-1
	- Sense of room is that future delivery will be not be part  of
Phase-1, but may be part of Phase-2.  
		- It should continue to progress independently of
profile 1 for now.
	- All requirements in Lemonade will be "MUST" and apply to the
server.  Shoulds and May's
		increase the number of combinations and will raise
implementation complexity for what 
		is a understood to be a limited client. 
		- OMA or others can write behavioral requirements
against the client.

Phase-2 of the profile will include additional new protocol work as
needed and will also include explicit requirements for pre-existing IMAP
and SMTP-Submission extensions.  Phase-1 is not intended to be complete,
but to include a useful subset to include primarily the
forward-without-download.

Session 2: Wednesday 10:30-12:30

The second session was focused primarily around Phase-2 of the Lemonade
profile.

Ileana gave a brief review of the OMA process and solicited
clarification on the IETF process.  Glenn Parsons offered a possible
schedule for deliverables  from lemonade, and the two figured out in
real time what that might mean for various OMA deliverables including
the requirements and the IOP test case.  Also clarified was that the OMA
MEM meeting held the next week, August 8-9 was not a joint meeting, and
could be attended only by OMA members and Eric Burger as an invited
expert to present the work of the Lemonade WG.  OMA can meet jointly on
in the form of a workshop where no decisions are taken. 

Next was a discussion on Server to Client notifications, a prominent
area of requirements from the OMA.  There are inband notifications that
can be provided by IMAP when the client is connected to the server, and
out-of-band notifications via an available signaling channel.  It was
noted that IDLE does not provide notifications for any but the selected
mailbox, but that CLEARIDLE offers the ability to monitor several
mailboxes.

Non-IMAP notifications are out of scope for LEMONADE, but there is work
within the SIEVE working group that may be directly relevant.  In
particular the SIEVE rules may include criteria to send a notification
and a specification of what that channel might be.  It was noted that
SIEVE implemented in the Message Deposit Agent (MDA) will not see events
for mailbox state changes.  After an interesting discussion, several
folks agreed to offline discussions to discuss how SIEVE and the various
mailbox status change events might be filtered and delivered in a
semi-consistent state.  (why send a SIEVE new message event and a
mailbox-initiated new mail event for example)

In the big-picture, there is charter text asking for Lemonade to pause
on work for notifications for big-picture advise on the relationship of
the large and growing numbers of application specific and general
notification schemes proliferating within the IETF including  XMPP, SIP,
and WebDav.  The charter language requesting consideration of IAB
feedback on server-to-server notifications was reviewed and the AD's
took an action item to determine what to do with the "embarrassing"
charter language and/or IAB input.  After the meeting Scott Hollenbeck
identified the relevant IAB response, apparently lost previously in the
noise.
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-10-iab-notification.html

With the caveat of the language, a discussion was held on whether
server-2-client notifications should be within scope of Lemonade.
Discussion of a new WG or expanded Lemonade of SIEVE charter were
discussed.  A straw poll to gauge interest in S2C work was made, with
the AD's recognizing enough interest to let the conversation proceed.
Rather than debate without a proposal, Stephan Maes took an action item
to define a work item.  The chairs agreed to translate the contributed
text into "high charter English" and send to the WG for comments.  Chris
Newman offered to write up a draft on notification triggers and formats
useful for email, explicitly without discussing possible transports..

In the remaining time, Stephan gave an overview of some of the P-IMAP
derived contributions into the IETF.  In some cases the drafts will be
withdrawn where they are duplicative, such as UIDPlus and Monoinuid.
Others such as XFILTER will be considered as options to address
requirements  in Phase-2.

The chairs solicited hosts for an interim WG meeting.  The interesting
case of holding a meeting in conjunction with the OMA meeting in Sydney
does not work per IETF interval restrictions (too close to next IETF
plenary).  Scheduling will move to list and dialogue with OMA will be
opened via the liaison reply.

Meeting Adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Greg Vaudreuil

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