new drafts towards phase 2 of lemonade
DESCRIPTION
Stéphane H. Maes, [email protected] Ray Cromwell [email protected]. New Drafts Towards Phase 2 of Lemonade. Starting to address these issues: Proposed new drafts. draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-00 S2C notifications and Filters: draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-filters-how-to-01 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
1Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
New Drafts Towards Phase 2 of Lemonade
Stéphane H. Maes, [email protected]
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
2Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Starting to address these issues:Proposed new drafts
• draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-00
• S2C notifications and Filters:– draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-filters-how-to-01
– draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01
• draft-maes-lemonade-lzip-02• Remote editing:
– Issues on realizing LDeliver capabilities with trio, IMAPURL and Byte Ranges
• Virtual folders– draft-maes-lemonade-vfolder-01
• Intermediaries and firewalls:– draft-smaes-lemonade-intermediary-challenges-03– draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-03
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
3Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
CONVERT• draft-ietf-lemonade-convert-00:
– Started from draft-maes-lemonade-lconvert-01 and implemented London agreements
– Comments received from Alexey to be implemented in next revision
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
4Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
S2C Notifications• draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-filters-how-to-01
– pointing to draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01
– Comments from Alexey: OK to be implemented
• Capability Descriptions – draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01
defines how CAPABILITY can be used to support
– determination of support of server to client notification, filtering
– and filter updates…
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
5Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
S2C Notifications• Event-based synchronization
– draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01 describes how event-based notification can be performed. This includes a payload specification for outband notification based on OMA-EMN and possible extensions.
– Inband notification is achieved via IDLE. • Could be optimized? (see clearIDLE, Checkpoint, …) (not yet in
draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-filters-how-to-01)
– draft-newman-lemonade-msgevent-00 provides a list of possible events that could be notified
– (based on the filter settings).
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
6Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
S2C Notifications
• Filters – SIEVE provides an email filtering language. – draft-ietf-sieve-notify provides mechanisms to
generate notifications – based on the SIEVE filter.
• To extend as NF, VF – see Lemonade realization diagram (not yet in draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-filters-how-to-01)
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
7Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
IETF LEMONADE Notifications
ESMTP
ESMTP
IMAP
SUBMIT
MTA
URLAUTH
LEMONADEIMAP Store
LEMONADESubmitServer
MTA
MobileNotification Magic
Wireless Protocols(WAP Push, SMS, …)
MUA
Non-IETFStuff
IETFStuff
Content Flows
DF
NF
VF
Manage SIEVE?
AF
NotificationStuff
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
8Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
S2C Notifications• Next steps
– Define ways to support NF/VF and set from client (not yet in draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-filters-how-to-01)
– SIEVE filters should be extend to support generating notifications based on draft-newman-lemonade-msgevent-00 to support the notions of messages of type A, B and C and view, notification and event filters described in OMA MEM AD.
– The payload should follow draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01 (OMA MEM + extensions?)
– Notifications target the email client through other notification servers or enablers. The notifications should be sent to the appropriate server.
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
9Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
S2C Notifications
• Checking notification settings – Mailbox annotations provide additional
mechanism for the client to determine server settings as discussed in draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01.
– draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01 also provides an inband mechanisms to determine these.
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
10Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
S2C Notifications• Changing notification settings
– draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-client-01 provides an inband mechanism to set / change notification and server settings
• Changing filters from the client – draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-server-to-
client-01 provides LFILTER as a way to update inband the filters from the client.
– See VF/NF updates (see lemonade realization diagram) (not yet in draft-maes-lemonade-notifications-filters-how-to-01)
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
11Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
S2C Notifications
• Out of scope items:– Specific bindings for SMS (SMS binary, WAP
Push) notifications. – OMA client provisioning and device management
and other provisioning specifications (e.g. SMS based)
– OMA enablers to support outband notifications.– OMA XDM may be considered also for outband
filter changes.
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
12Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
VFolder• Create virtual folders
– Permanent searchs– Support VF for mobile view etc…
• Inspired from P-IMAP LPSEARCH• Comments received from Alexey to be
implemented in next revision• Proposal to make Lemonade WG IETF draft• Issue / question:
– Need to reserve some folder names (inbox, outbox, …)?
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
13Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Compression
• Mobile clients (GPRS, 1xRTT) are bandwidth constrained
• Mobile bandwidth is expensive
• IMAP is a verbose protocol
• Experiments have shown dramatic compression ratios of IMAP response sequences are achievable
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
14Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Solutions• Transport Layer Security (TLS) compression
– But, not all TLS implementations support compression
– Deployment of a codec specialized for IMAP may be infeasible
• Application level encryption– New IMAP extension LZIP
• Wraps an IMAP command and indicates to the server to compress all server generated responses using ZLIB
• Defining specialized compression dictionary may be desirable
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
15Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
LZIP Example
C: A001 LZIP A002 FETCH 1:* ALL
S: * LZIP ~{1234}
S: ...[zipped response to FETCH command]...
S: A001 OK LZIP completed
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
16Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
LZIP Compression example ratios600 messages in INBOX
1064/2003 (53.1%)UID FETCH n BODY[1]249/465 (53.5%)SELECT INBOX3144/20408(15.4%)UID FETCH 1:* FLAGS
RatioIMAP Command
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
17Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Compression
LZIP (defining compression at the application layer) allows some clients to achieve compression without a full SSL/TLS implementation, or where the server does not support the right set of cipher suites, or where an application protocol sensitive codec may be desired
Comments
1 minimumMinimum 2+RoundtripsZLIB + cpu overheadTLS/SSL stack + CPU
overheadComplexity
LZIPTLS
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
18Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Remote Editing• Implementing LDeliver functionality with trio and IMAPURL
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
19Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
OMA Requirements
• USAB-21 “The mobile email client MUST allow the user to edit a partially downloaded email, for reply and/or forward and have the server send all the portions of the edited email while minimizing the amount of data that is sent to the server (e.g. sending the differences)”
• USAB-25 “When replying to a list of addressees, the mobile email client MUST allow the user to edit the addresses without downloading or uploading the whole list of addresses and minimize the amount of data that is sent to the server”
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
20Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Approaches
• IMAPURL can be extended to support partial fetch of body sections (the ‘ipartial’ grammar extension). This allows CATENATE to operate on text at a smaller granularity.
• IMAPURL and IMAP could also be extended to allow header address fields to be treated as lists which can have range operations applied, or partially fetched
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
21Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Use Case
• Reply To All/Group with large recipient list
– Selectively remove or append recipients to list
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
22Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Problems
• Composed header fields could be edited
• Construction of SMTP Envelope isn’t handled
• BURL doesn’t allow fetching IMAP data for envelope. Need SMTP extension as well?
• Is use case too rare?
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
23Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
SMTP Extension?
• Extension parameter for MAIL/RCPT to fetch from a URL?
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
24Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Discussion
• Ideas for solutions and syntax?
• Security issues
– Sending spam also becomes very efficient over low bandwidth links
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
25Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
Intermediaries
• draft-smaes-lemonade-intermediary-challenges-03– Per London AI discusses main issues:
• IDLE life time on mobile network (2.5G and even worse on 3G network)
– Battery implications– Time out of intermediaries– TCP vs HTTP:
» IDLE over HTTP has much longer life time
• Firewall issues
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
26Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
HTTP Binding• draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-03• Optional use of HTTP as binding for IMAP
– Address time out differences– This binding is intended to facilitate the use of IMAP in deployments involving a
variety of intermediaries• offers a standardized alternative to de facto proprietary implementations of such a
feature.– HTTP allows operators to reuse similar setup and model already used for many
other similar and related services, e.g. certain proprietary push e-mail and synchronization offerings, OMA Data Synchronization, Web services and Web access.
– Using HTTP/HTTPS can simplify deployment in a corporate network through the potential use of a reverse proxy .
– Also has the advantage of not requiring changes to any firewall configurations and reduces deployment concerns that this often presents to corporation.
• In general the solution is compatible with any existing firewall. – A reverse proxy can also support deployment models that offer roles to other
service providers in the value chains, as discussed in OMA Mobiel e-mail AD• Based on LDELIVER disposition:
– Binding for submit on HTTP• Added security / section on caching issues
Nov 09, 2005IETF 64 - Lemonade
27Towards Lemonade Profile Phase 2
HTTP Binding
• Follows HTTP message model and error• Follows RFC3205• Plan to generate bindings on:
– SOAP– REST– WebDAV
• Proposal to analyze these bindings too and then decide best way forward