Subject: [lemonade] New Liaison Statement, "Regarding the LEMONADE Profile"

From: Glenn Parsons(IETF LEMONADE WG) <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:26:23 -0500

Title: Regarding the LEMONADE Profile
Submission Date: 2006-02-02
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=193 
Please reply by 2006-03-13

From: Glenn Parsons(IETF LEMONADE WG) <[email-masked]>
To: OMA MEM([email-masked])
Cc: [email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
Reponse Contact: [email-masked]
Technical Contact: [email-masked]
[email-masked]
Purpose: For action 
Body: From: IETF LEMONADE Working Group
To: OMA MWG MEM Sub Working Group
Title: 	
Response contact:  [email-masked]
Purpose:  For Action
Deadline:  March 13, 2006

The LEMONADE working group (WG) would like to thank the OMA Mobile Email Sub Working Group for your latest liaison.

Our previous liaison indicated that we have proposed a realization of the OMA MEM architecture using IETF protocols and that we documented this in an Internet Draft (see draft-ietf-lemonade-oma-mem-realization-00.txt).  The purpose of the WG Internet Draft is to provide a working document in the IETF to ensure that our work addresses the OMA MEM required features within our scope and to further affirm its status as a WG view.  As is the case with some other WG documents in the LEMONADE WG, there is currently no intent to progress this draft to an RFC.

Further, there is no intent to publish the OMA MEM RD, AD or TS in IETF.

As we have indicated before, the LEMONADE WG is working on a set of extensions to IMAP and ESMTP to support mobile email.  This set will be succinctly described in the LEMONADE profile (draft-ietf-lemonade-profile-bis).  This will cover the protocol exchanged on interface ME-2 (ME-2a and ME-2b) as well as the notifications aspects of ME-3, referring to the interfaces described in the OMA MEM AD.  The OMA TS can normatively reference the LEMONADE profile for these interface aspects and for the MEM protocol.  In addition, we are also considering a best practices document on deployment considerations that may be useful to OMA MEM. 

We appreciate your response to the questions that we had asked in our previous liaison.  We have a number of follow-on comments/questions:

1.  We will support signed notifications but will add the ability to turn it off.

2.  OMA STI is currently being used in CONVERT (draft-ietf-lemonade-convert).  However we are concerned with the large number of optional parameters.  We would prefer a shorter finite mandatory set (that is extensible).  What advice can you offer on a shorter set?

3.  We will be providing ‘Manage SIEVE Protocol’ to manage the filters.  Additional methods (such as XDMS) could be used as well by OMA if desired.  But a complete set of remote management functionality will be made available by the LEMONADE work as part of the LEMONADE profile.

4.  We are evaluating where in our protocols delays may play a role.  We note that there may be a tradeoff in mobile phones on battery life vs delay.   What delay aspects are of concern to the OMA – is it roundtrip, network or service level? Clearly our design will aim at  minimizing delays that are within our control. We would like to make  sure we understand the aspect of particular interest to OMA MEM.

5.  We are aware of the limitations for mutual authentication on mobile devices.  We apologize for the confusion in our previous response.  Mutual authentication is a feature provided by SASL (RFC 2222) framework, or SASL + TLS. However the use of TLS is not required, and this could just be handled by SASL mechanisms which are optimized for mobile phone use.

6.  Message recall is possible within the submit (i.e., administrative) domain.  We indicated that we could design protocol for this based on MSGTRK (RFC 3888).  However, in the general end-to-end Internet Mail case it is practically impossible to design a message recall solution that will reliably work. We encourage OMA MEM WG to consider that  reality and verify that recall is still a desired target mechanisms for OMA MEM

We would like to draw your attention to the fact that LEMONADE has wrapped up the first phase of its work.  We are currently working on finalizing the content of Profile bis.  Additional input on details required to meet OMA requirements have been reviewed, and most have become WG documents.  The timeline would likely result in conclusion in early 2006.

Up-to-date information on LEMONADE Internet-Drafts and RFCs can always be found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.html with more detail tracked on the supplemental site.

Finally, as information, the next meetings of the IETF LEMONADE WG are:
-	Mar 20-24 – IETF 65 plenary – Dallas, TX
-	Jul 10-14 – IETF 66 plenary - TBD
Attachment(s):
     PDF of liaison (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file267.pdf)

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