One document matched: draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-07.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-06.txt
Network Working Group Chris Newman
Request for Comments: DRAFT Sun Microsystems
Arnt Gulbrandsen
Oryx Mail Systems GmhH
November 2006
Internet Message Access Protocol Internationalization
draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-07.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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) version 4rev1 has basic
support for non-ASCII characters in mailbox names and search
substrings. It also supports non-ASCII message headers and content
encoded as specified by Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(MIME). This specification defines a collection of IMAP extensions
which improve international support including comparator negotiation
for search, sort and thread, language negotiation for international
error text, and translations for namespace prefixes.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-draft November 2006
Table of Contents
1. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LANGUAGE Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 LANGUAGE Extension Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 LANGUAGE Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 LANGUAGE Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 TRANSLATION Extension to the NAMESPACE Response . . . . . . . 6
3.5 Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. COMPARATOR Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 COMPARATOR Extension Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 Comparators and Charsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3 COMPARATOR Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4 COMPARATOR Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5 Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Other IMAP Internationalization Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1 UTF-8 Userids and Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2 UTF-8 Mailbox Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3 UTF-8 Domains, Addresses and Mail Headers . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Relevant Standards for i18n IMAP Implementations . . . . . . 13
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 16
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].
The formal syntax use the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
[RFC4234] notation including the core rules defined in Appendix A.
The UTF8-related productions are defined in [RFC3629].
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively. If a single "C:" or "S:" label applies to
multiple lines, then the line breaks between those lines are for
editorial clarity only and are not part of the actual protocol
exchange.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-draft November 2006
2. Introduction
This specification defines two IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501] extensions to
enhance international support. These extensions can be advertised
and implemented separately.
The LANGUAGE extension allows the client to request a suitable
language for protocol error messages and in combination with the
NAMESPACE extension [RFC2342] enables namespace translations.
The COMPARATOR extension allows the client to request a suitable
comparator which will modify the behavior of the base
specification's SEARCH command as well as the SORT and THREAD
extensions [SORT]. This leverages the comparator registry
[RFCxxxx].
3. LANGUAGE Extension
IMAP allows server responses to include human-readable text that in
many cases needs to be presented to the user. But that text is
limited to US-ASCII by the IMAP specification [RFC3501] in order to
preserve backwards compatibility with deployed IMAP implementations.
This section specifies a way for an IMAP client to negotiate which
language the server should use when sending human-readable text.
The LANGUAGE extension only provides a mechanism for altering fixed
server strings such as response text and NAMESPACE folder names.
Assigning localized language aliases to shared mailboxes would be
done with a separate mechanism such as the proposed METADATA
extension (see [METADATA]).
3.1 LANGUAGE Extension Requirements
IMAP servers that support this extension MUST list the keyword
LANGUAGE in their CAPABILITY response as well as in the greeting
CAPABILITY data.
A server that advertises this extension MUST use the language "i-
default" as described in [RFC2277] as its default language until
another supported language is negotiated by the client. A server
MUST include "i-default" as one of its supported languages.
A client that supports this extension MUST be prepared for a
possible NAMESPACE response [RFC2342] from the server.
The LANGUAGE command is valid in all states.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-draft November 2006
3.2 LANGUAGE Command
Arguments: Optional language range arguments.
Response: A possible LANGUAGE response (see Section 3.3).
Result: OK - Command completed
NO - Could not complete command
BAD - arguments invalid
The LANGUAGE command requests that human-readable text emitted by
the server be localized to a language matching one of the language
range argument as described by section 2.5 of RFC 3066.
If the command succeeds, the server will return human-readable
responses in the first supported language specified. The first
response affected by the change is the tagged OK response to the
LANGUAGE command. These responses will be in UTF-8 [RFC3629].
If the command fails, the server will continue to return human-
readable responses in the language it was previously using.
The client MUST NOT use MUL (Multiple languages) or UND
(Undetermined) language tags and the server MUST return BAD if
either tag is used, even if other, legal, arguments are also
supplied. The special "*" language range argument indicates a
request to use a language designated as preferred by the server
administrator. The preferred language MAY vary based on the
currently active user.
If a language range does not match a known language tag exactly but
does match a language by the rules of [RFC4647], the server MUST
send an untagged LANGUAGE response indicating the language selected.
If there aren't any arguments, the server SHOULD send an untagged
LANGUAGE response listing the languages it supports. If the server
is unable to enumerate the list of languages it supports it MAY
return a tagged NO response to the enumeration request.
< The server defaults to using English i-default responses until
the user explicitly changes the language. >
C: A001 LOGIN KAREN PASSWORD
S: A001 OK LOGIN completed
< Client requested MUL language. Server MUST reply with BAD. >
C: A002 LANGUAGE MUL
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-draft November 2006
S: A002 BAD Invalid language MUL
< A LANGUAGE command with no arguments is a request to enumerate
the list of languages the server supports. >
C: A003 LANGUAGE
S: * LANGUAGE (EN DE IT i-default)
S: A003 OK Supported languages have been enumerated
C: B001 LANGUAGE
S: B001 NO Server is unable to enumerate supported languages
< Once the client changes the language, all responses will be in
that language starting with the tagged OK to the LANGUAGE
command. Because RFCs are in US-ASCII, this document uses an
ASCII transcription rather than UTF-8 text, e.g. ue in the
word "ausgefuehrt" >
C: A004 LANGUAGE DE
S: A004 OK Sprachwechsel durch LANGUAGE-Befehl ausgefuehrt
< If a server does not support the requested primary language,
responses will continue to be returned in the current language
the server is using. >
C: A005 LANGUAGE FR
S: A005 NO Diese Sprache ist nicht unterstuetzt
C: A006 LANGUAGE DE-IT
S: * LANGUAGE (DE-IT)
S: A006 OK Sprachwechsel durch LANGUAGE-Befehl ausgefuehrt
C: A007 LANGUAGE "*"
S: * LANGUAGE (DE)
S: A007 OK LANGUAGE-Befehl erfolgreich ausgefuehrt
< Server does not speak French, but does speak English. User
speaks Canadian French and Canadian English. >
C: A008 LANGUAGE FR-CA EN-CA
S: * LANGUAGE (EN)
S: A008 OK Now speaking English
3.3 LANGUAGE Response
Contents: A list of one or more language tags.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-draft November 2006
The LANGUAGE response occurs as a result of a LANGUAGE command. A
LANGUAGE response with a list containing a single language tag
indicates that the server is now using that language. A LANGUAGE
response with a list containing multiple language tags indicates the
server is communicating a list of available languages to the client,
and no change in the active language has been made.
3.4 TRANSLATION Extension to the NAMESPACE Response
If as a result of the newly negotiated language, localized
representations of the namespace prefixes are available, the server
SHOULD include these in the TRANSLATION extension to the NAMESPACE
response.
OPEN ISSUE: I would appreciate concrete suggestions about how to do
NAMESPACE better.
The TRANSLATION extension to the NAMESPACE response returns a single
string, containing the modified UTF-7 [RFC3501] encoded translation
of the namespace prefix. It is the responsibility of the client to
convert between the namespace prefix and the translation of the
namespace prefix when presenting mailbox names to the user.
In this example a server supports the IMAP4 NAMESPACE command. It
uses no prefix to the user's Personal Namespace, a prefix of "Other
Users" to its Other Users' Namespace and a prefix of "Public
Folders" to its only Shared Namespace. Since a client will often
display these prefixes to the user, the server includes a
translation of them that can be presented to the user.
C: A001 LANGUAGE DE-IT
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/"))(("Other Users/" "/" "TRANSLATION"
("Andere Ben&APw-tzer/"))) (("Public Folders/" "/"
"TRANSLATION" ("Gemeinsame Mailboxen/")))
S: A001 OK LANGUAGE-Befehl ausgefuehrt
3.5 Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification inherits ABNF [RFC4234] rules
from IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501], IMAP4 Namespace [RFC2342], Tags for the
Identifying Languages [RFC4646], and UTF-8 [RFC3629].
command-any =/ language-cmd
; LANGUAGE command is valid in all states
language-cmd = "LANGUAGE" *(SP lang-range-quoted)
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-draft November 2006
response-payload =/ language-data / comparator-data
language-data = "LANGUAGE" SP "(" lang-tag-quoted *(SP lang-tag-
quoted) ")"
namespace-trans = SP DQUOTE "TRANSLATION" DQUOTE SP "(" string ")"
; the string is encoded in Modified UTF-7.
; this is a subset of the syntax permitted by
; the Namespace_Response_Extension rule in [RFC2342]
lang-range-quoted = astring
; Once any literal wrapper or quoting is removed, this
; follows the language-range rule in [RFC4647]
lang-tag-quoted = astring
; Once any literal wrapper or quoting is removed, this follows
; the Language-Tag rule in [RFC4646]
resp-text = ["[" resp-text-code "]" SP ] UTF8-TEXT-CHAR
*(UTF8-TEXT-CHAR / "[")
; After the server is changed to a language other than
; i-default, this resp-text rule replaces the resp-text
; rule from [RFC3501].
UTF8-TEXT-CHAR = %x20-%x5A / %x5C-%x7E / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
; UTF-8 excluding 7-bit control characters and "["
4. COMPARATOR Extension
IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501] includes the SEARCH command which can be used to
locate messages matching criteria including human-readable text.
The SORT extension [SORT] to IMAP allows the client to ask the
server to determine the order of messages based on criteria
including human-readable text. These mechanisms require the ability
to support non-English search and sort functions.
This section defines an IMAP extension to negotiate use of
comparators [RFCxxxx] to internationalize IMAP SEARCH, SORT and
THREAD. The IMAP extension consists of a new command to determine
or change the active comparator and a new response to indicate the
active comparator and possibly other available comparators.
The term "default comparator" refers to the comparator which is used
by SEARCH and SORT absent any negotiation using the COMPARATOR
command. The term "active comparator" refers to the comparator
which will be used within a session e.g. by SEARCH and SORT. The
COMPARATOR command is used to change the active comparator.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-draft November 2006
The active comparator applies to the following SEARCH keys: "BCC",
"BODY", "CC", "FROM", "SUBJECT", "TEXT", "TO" and "HEADER". If the
server also advertises the "SORT" extension, then the active
comparator applies to the following SORT keys: "CC", "FROM",
"SUBJECT" and "TO". If the server advertises THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT,
then the active comparator applies to the ORDEREDSUBJECT threading
algorithm. If the server advertises THREAD=REFERENCES, then the
active comparator applies to the subject field comparisons done by
REFERENCES threading algorithm. Future extensions may choose to
apply the active comparator to their SEARCH keys.
For SORT and THREAD, the pre-processing necessary to extract the
base subject text from a Subject header occurs prior to the
application of a comparator.
4.1 COMPARATOR Extension Requirements
IMAP servers that support this extension MUST list the keyword
COMPARATOR in their CAPABILITY data once IMAP enters authenticated
state, and MAY list that keyword in other states.
A server that advertises this extension MUST implement the i;ascii-
casemap and i;octet comparators, as defined in [RFCxxxx]. A server
intended to be deployed globally MUST implement the i;basic
comparator, as defined in [BASIC].
A server that advertises this extension SHOULD use i;ascii-casemap
as the default comparator. The selection of the default comparator
MAY be adjustable by the server administrator, and MAY be sensitive
to the current user. Once the IMAP connection enters authenticated
state, the default comparator MUST remain static for the remainder
of that connection.
A server that advertises this extension MUST support UTF-8 as a
SEARCH charset.
The COMPARATOR command is valid in authenticated and selected
states.
4.2 Comparators and Character Encodings
When SEARCH, SORT, THREAD or another command needs to perform
collation operations on messages (or on the command's arguments),
the server MUST remove MIME encoding (see [RFC2047] for headers and
[RFC2045] for bodyparts) and convert character encodings compatibly
before doing the collation operation.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-draft November 2006
Strings encoded using unknown character encodings should never match
when using the SEARCH command, and should sort together with invalid
input for the SORT and THREAD commands.
4.3 COMPARATOR Command
Arguments: Optional comparator order arguments.
Response: A possible COMPARATOR response (see Section 4.4).
Result: OK - Command completed
NO - No matching comparator found
BAD - arguments invalid
The COMPARATOR command is used to determine or change the active
comparator. When issued with no arguments, it results in a
COMPARATOR response indicating the currently active comparator.
When issued with one or more comparator order argument, it will
change the active comparator if any comparator matches any argument.
The COMPARATOR response will list other matching comparators if more
than one matches the specified patterns.
The argument "*" refers to the server's default comparator.
Otherwise each argument is an comparator specification as defined in
the Internet Application Protocol Comparator Registry [RFCxxxx].
< The client requests activating a Czech comparator if possible,
or else a generic international comparator which it considers
suitable for Czech. The server picks the first supported
comparator. >
C: A001 COMPARATOR cz;* i;basic*
S: * COMPARATOR i;basic;uca=3.1.1;uv=3.2
S: A001 OK Will use i;basic;uca=3.1.1;uv=3.2 for collation
< The client requests pure octet matching, then does a search
for potential GIF files, then switches back to its usual
comparator. Note that this may not work on all IMAP servers,
see RFC 3501, page 50, second paragraph. >
C: B123 COMPARATOR i;octet
S: * COMPARATOR i;octet
S: B123 OK
C: B124 SEARCH OR BODY GIF87A BODY GIF89A
S: * SEARCH 42 69
S: B124 OK
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-draft November 2006
C: B125 COMPARATOR cz;* i;basic*
S: * COMPARATOR i;basic;uca=3.1.1;uv=3.2
S: B125 OK.
4.4 COMPARATOR Response
Contents: The active comparator.
An optional list of available matching comparators
The COMPARATOR response occurs as a result of a COMPARATOR command.
The first argument in the comparator response is the name of the
active comparator. The second argument is a list of comparators
which matched any of the arguments to the COMPARATOR command and is
present only if more than one match is found.
4.5 Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification inherits ABNF [RFC4234] rules
from IMAP4rev1 [RFC3501], and Internet Application Protocol
Comparator Registry [RFCxxxx].
command-auth =/ comparator-cmd
resp-text-code =/ "BADCOMPARATOR" / "BADMATCH"
comparator-cmd = "COMPARATOR" *(SP comp-order-quoted)
comparator-data = "COMPARATOR" SP comp-sel-quoted [SP "("
comp-name-quoted *(SP comp-name-quoted) ")"]
comp-name-quoted = astring
; Once any literal wrapper or quoting is removed, this
; follows the collation-name rule from [RFCxxxx]
comp-order-quoted = astring
; Once any literal wrapper or quoting is removed, this
; follows the collation-order rule from [RFCxxxx]
comp-sel-quoted = astring
; Once any literal wrapper or quoting is removed, this
; follows the collation-sel rule from [RFCxxxx]
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-draft November 2006
5. Other IMAP Internationalization Issues
The following sections provide an overview of various other IMAP
internationalization issues. These issues are not resolved by this
specification, but could be resolved by other standards work, such
as that being done by the EAI group (see [IMAP-EAI]).
5.1 Unicode Userids and Passwords
IMAP4rev1 presently restricts the userid and password fields of the
LOGIN command to US-ASCII. The "userid" and "password" fields of the
IMAP LOGIN command are restricted to US-ASCII only until a future
standards track RFC states otherwise. Servers are encouraged to
validate both fields to make sure they conform to the formal syntax
of UTF-8 and to reject the LOGIN command if that syntax is violated.
Servers MAY reject the use of any 8-bit in the "userid" or
"password" field.
When AUTHENTICATE is used, some servers may support userids and
passwords in Unicode [RFC3490] since SASL (see [RFC4422]) allows
that. However, such userids cannot be used as email addresses.
5.2 UTF-8 Mailbox Names
The modified UTF-7 mailbox naming convention described in section
5.1.3 of RFC 3501 is best viewed as an transition from the status
quo in 1996 when modified UTF-7 was first specified. At that time,
there was widespread unofficial use of local character sets such as
ISO-8859-1 and Shift-JIS for non-ASCII mailbox names, with resultant
non-interoperability.
The requirements in section 5.1 of RFC 3501 are very important if
we're ever going to be able to deploy UTF-8 mailbox names. Servers
are encouraged to enforce them.
5.3 UTF-8 Domains, Addresses and Mail Headers
There is now an IETF standard for Internationalizing Domain Names in
Applications [RFC3490]. While IMAP clients are free to support this
standard, an argument can be made that it would be helpful to simple
clients if the IMAP server could perform this conversion (the same
argument would apply to MIME header encoding [RFC2047]). However,
it would be unwise to move forward with such work until the work in
progress to define the format of international email addresses is
complete.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-draft November 2006
6. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to add LANGUAGE and COMPARATOR to the IMAP
Extensions registry.
7. Security Considerations
The LANGUAGE extension makes a new command available in "Not
Authenticated" state in IMAP. Some IMAP implementations run with
root privilege when the server is in "Not Authenticated" state and
do not revoke that privilege until after authentication is complete.
Such implementations are particularly vulnerable to buffer overflow
security errors at this stage and need to implement parsing of this
command with extra care.
A LANGUAGE command issued prior to activation of a security layer is
subject to an active attack which suppresses or modifies the
negotiation and thus makes STARTTLS or authentication error messages
more difficult to interpret. This is not a new attack as the error
messages themselves are subject to active attack. Clients MUST re-
issue the LANGUAGE command once a security layer is active, so this
does not impact subsequent protocol operations.
Both the LANGUAGE and COMPARATOR extensions use the UTF-8 charset,
thus the security considerations for UTF-8 [RFC3629] are relevent.
However, neither uses UTF-8 for identifiers so the most serious
concerns do not apply.
8. Acknowledgements
The LANGUAGE extension is based on a previous Internet draft by Mike
Gahrns and Alexey Melnikov, a substantial portion of the text in
that section was written by them. Many people have participated in
discussions about an IMAP Language extension in the various fora of
the IETF and Internet working groups, so any list of contributors is
bound to be incomplete. However, the authors would like to thank
Andrew McCown for early work on the original proposal, John Myers
for suggestions regarding the namespace issue, along with Jutta
Degener, Mark Crispin, Mark Pustilnik, Larry Osterman, Cyrus Daboo
and Martin Duerst for their many suggestions that have been
incorporated into this document.
Initial discussion of the COMPARATOR extension involved input from
Mark Crispin and other participants of the IMAP Extensions WG.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-draft November 2006
9. Relevant Standards for i18n IMAP Implementations
This is a non-normative list of standards to consider when
implementing i18n aware IMAP software.
o The LANGUAGE and COMPARATOR extensions to IMAP (this
specification).
o The 8-bit rules for mailbox naming in section 5.1 of RFC 3501.
o The Mailbox International Naming Convention in section 5.1.3 of
RFC 3501.
o MIME [RFC2045] for message bodies.
o MIME header encoding [RFC2047] for message headers.
o The IETF EAI working group.
o MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions [RFC2231] for
filenames. Quality IMAP server implementations will
automatically combine multipart parameters when generating the
BODYSTRUCTURE. There is also some deployed non-standard use of
MIME header encoding inside double-quotes for filenames.
o IDNA [RFC3490] and punycode [RFC3492] for domain names
(presently only relevant to IMAP clients).
o The UTF-8 charset [RFC3629].
o The IETF policy on Character Sets and Languages [RFC2277].
Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[RFC2342] Gahrns, Newman, "IMAP4 Namespace", RFC 2342, May 1998.
[RFC3501] Crispin, "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC4234] Crocker, Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, Brandenburg
Internetworking, Demon Internet Ltd, October 2005.
[RFC4422] Melnikov, Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication and Security
Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-draft November 2006
[RFC4646] Philips, Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47,
RFC 4646, September 2006.
[RFC4647] Philips, Davis, "Matching of Language Tags", BCP 47, RFC
4647, September 2006.
[RFCxxxx] Newman, Duerst, Gulbrandsen, "Internet Application
Protocol Comparator Registry", RFC-draft-newman-i18n-
comparator, September 2006
Informative References
[RFC2045] Freed, Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC
2045, November 1996.
[RFC2047] Moore, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part
Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC
2047, November 1996.
[RFC2231] Freed, Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word
Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, Hoffman, Costello, "Internationalizing Domain
Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC3492] Costello, "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for
Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3492, March 2003.
[SORT] Crispin, M. and K. Murchison, "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS
PROTOCOL - SORT AND THREAD EXTENSION", draft-ietf-
imapext-sort-17 (work in progress), May 2004.
[METADATA] Daboo, C., "IMAP METADATA Extension", draft-daboo-imap-
annotatemore-10 (work in progress), November 2006.
[BASIC] Newman, Duerst, Gulbrandsen, "i;basic - Registration of
the Unicode Collation Algorithm (UCA)", draft-
gulbrandsen-collation-basic (work in progress), November
2006.
[IMAP-EAI] Resnick, Newman, ""IMAP Support for UTF-8", draft-ietf-
iea-imap-utf8 (work in progress), May 2006.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-draft November 2006
Authors' Addresses
Chris Newman
Sun Microsystems
3401 Centrelake Dr., Suite 410
Ontario, CA 91761
US
Email: chris.newman@sun.com
Arnt Gulbrandsen
Oryx Mail Systems GmbH
Schweppermannstr. 8
D-81781 Muenchen
Germany
Email: arnt@oryx.com
Fax: +49 89 4502 9758
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-draft November 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.
Full 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.
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Newman, Gulbrandsen Expires May 2007 [Page 16]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 06:08:13 |