rfcs: update RFCs and provide better filenames

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net>

docs/rfcs/rfc4469.IMAP_CATENATE_extension.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,731 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         P. Resnick
+Request for Comments: 4469                         QUALCOMM Incorporated
+Updates: 3501, 3502                                           April 2006
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+       Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) CATENATE Extension
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+Abstract
+
+   The CATENATE extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
+   extends the APPEND command to allow clients to create messages on the
+   IMAP server that may contain a combination of new data along with
+   parts of (or entire) messages already on the server.  Using this
+   extension, the client can catenate parts of an already existing
+   message onto a new message without having to first download the data
+   and then upload it back to the server.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The CATENATE extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
+   [1] allows the client to create a message on the server that can
+   include the text of messages (or parts of messages) that already
+   exist on the server without having to FETCH them and APPEND them back
+   to the server.  The CATENATE extension extends the APPEND command so
+   that, instead of a single message literal, the command can take as
+   arguments any combination of message literals (as described in IMAP
+   [1]) and message URLs (as described in the IMAP URL Scheme [2]
+   specification).  The server takes all the pieces and catenates them
+   into the output message.  The CATENATE extension can also coexist
+   with the MULTIAPPEND extension [3] to APPEND multiple messages in a
+   single command.
+
+   There are some obvious uses for the CATENATE extension.  The
+   motivating use case was to provide a way for a resource-constrained
+   client to compose a message for subsequent submission that contains
+   data that already exists in that client's IMAP store.  Because the
+   client does not have to download and re-upload potentially large
+   message parts, bandwidth and processing limitations do not have as
+   much impact.  In addition, since the client can create a message in
+   its own IMAP store, the command also addresses the desire of the
+   client to archive a copy of a sent message without having to upload
+   the message twice.  (Mechanisms for sending the message are outside
+   the scope of this document.)
+
+   The extended APPEND command can also be used to copy parts of a
+   message to another mailbox for archival purposes while getting rid of
+   undesired parts.  In environments where server storage is limited, a
+   client could get rid of large message parts by copying over only the
+   necessary parts and then deleting the original message.  The
+   mechanism could also be used to add data to a message (such as
+   prepending message header fields) or to include other data by making
+   a copy of the original and catenating the new data.
+
+2.  The CATENATE Capability
+
+   A server that supports this extension returns "CATENATE" as one of
+   the responses to the CAPABILITY command.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+3.  The APPEND Command
+
+   Arguments:  mailbox name
+               (The following can be repeated in the presence of the
+               MULTIAPPEND extension [3])
+               OPTIONAL flag parenthesized list
+               OPTIONAL date/time string
+               a single message literal or one or more message parts to
+               catenate, specified as:
+                           message literal
+                           or
+                           message (or message part) URL
+
+   Responses:  OPTIONAL NO responses: BADURL, TOOBIG
+
+   Result:     OK -  append completed
+               NO -  append error: can't append to that mailbox, error
+                     in flags or date/time or message text, or can't
+                     fetch that data
+               BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
+
+   The APPEND command concatenates all the message parts and appends
+   them as a new message to the end of the specified mailbox.  The
+   parenthesized flag list and date/time string set the flags and the
+   internal date, respectively, as described in IMAP [1].  The
+   subsequent command parameters specify the message parts that are
+   appended sequentially to the output message.
+
+   If the original form of APPEND is used, a message literal follows the
+   optional flag list and date/time string, which is appended as
+   described in IMAP [1].  If the extended form is used, "CATENATE" and
+   a parenthesized list of message literals and message URLs follows,
+   each of which is appended to the new message.  If a message literal
+   is specified (indicated by "TEXT"), the octets following the count
+   are appended.  If a message URL is specified (indicated by "URL"),
+   the octets of the body part pointed to by that URL are appended, as
+   if the literal returned in a FETCH BODY response were put in place of
+   the message part specifier.  The APPEND command does not cause the
+   \Seen flag to be set for any catenated body part.  The APPEND command
+   does not change the selected mailbox.
+
+   In the extended APPEND command, the string following "URL" is an IMAP
+   URL [2] and is interpreted according to the rules of [2].  The
+   present document only describes the behavior of the command using
+   IMAP URLs that refer to specific messages or message parts on the
+   current IMAP server from the current authenticated IMAP session.
+   Because of that, only relative IMAP message or message part URLs
+   (i.e., those having no scheme or <iserver>) are used.  The base URL
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+   for evaluating the relative URL is considered "imap://user@server/",
+   where "user" is the user name of the currently authenticated user and
+   "server" is the domain name of the current server.  When in the
+   selected state, the base URL is considered
+   "imap://user@server/mailbox", where "mailbox" is the encoded name of
+   the currently selected mailbox.  Additionally, since the APPEND
+   command is valid in the authenticated state of an IMAP session, no
+   further LOGIN or AUTHENTICATE command is performed for URLs specified
+   in the extended APPEND command.
+
+      Note: Use of an absolute IMAP URL or any URL that refers to
+      anything other than a message or message part from the current
+      authenticated IMAP session is outside the scope of this document
+      and would require an extension to this specification, and a server
+      implementing only this specification would return NO to such a
+      request.
+
+   The client is responsible for making sure that the catenated message
+   is in the format of an Internet Message Format (RFC 2822) [4] or
+   Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME) [5] message.  In
+   particular, when a URL is catenated, the server copies octets,
+   unchanged, from the indicated message or message part to the
+   catenated message.  It does no data conversion (e.g., MIME transfer
+   encodings) nor any verification that the data is appropriate for the
+   MIME part of the message into which it is inserted.  The client is
+   also responsible for inserting appropriate MIME boundaries between
+   body parts, and writing MIME Content-Type and Content-Transfer-
+   Encoding lines as needed in the appropriate places.
+
+   Responses behave just as the original APPEND command described in
+   IMAP [1].  If the server implements the IMAP UIDPLUS extension [6],
+   it will also return an APPENDUID response code in the tagged OK
+   response.  Two response codes are provided in Section 4 that can be
+   used in the tagged NO response if the APPEND command fails.
+
+4.  Response Codes
+
+   When a APPEND command fails, it may return a response code that
+   describes a reason for the failure.
+
+4.1.  BADURL Response
+
+   The BADURL response code is returned if the APPEND fails to process
+   one of the specified URLs.  Possible reasons for this are bad URL
+   syntax, unrecognized URL schema, invalid message UID, or invalid body
+   part.  The BADURL response code contains the first URL specified as a
+   parameter to the APPEND command that has caused the operation to
+   fail.
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+4.2.  TOOBIG Response
+
+   The TOOBIG response code is returned if the resulting message will
+   exceed the 4-GB IMAP message limit.  This might happen, for example,
+   if the client specifies 3 URLs for 2-GB messages.  Note that even if
+   the server doesn't return TOOBIG, it still has to be defensive
+   against misbehaving or malicious clients that try to construct a
+   message over the 4-GB limit.  The server may also wish to return the
+   TOOBIG response code if the resulting message exceeds a server-
+   specific message size limit.
+
+5.  Formal Syntax
+
+   The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
+   Form (ABNF) [7] notation.  Elements not defined here can be found in
+   the formal syntax of the ABNF [7], IMAP [1], and IMAP ABNF extensions
+   [8] specifications.  Note that capability and resp-text-code are
+   extended from the IMAP [1] specification and append-data is extended
+   from the IMAP ABNF extensions [8] specification.
+
+   append-data =/ "CATENATE" SP "(" cat-part *(SP cat-part) ")"
+
+   cat-part = text-literal / url
+
+   text-literal = "TEXT" SP literal
+
+   url = "URL" SP astring
+
+   resp-text-code =/ toobig-response-code / badurl-response-code
+
+   toobig-response-code = "TOOBIG"
+
+   badurl-response-code = "BADURL" SP url-resp-text
+
+   url-resp-text = 1*(%x01-09 /
+                      %x0B-0C /
+                      %x0E-5B /
+                      %x5D-FE) ; Any TEXT-CHAR except "]"
+
+   capability =/ "CATENATE"
+
+   The astring in the definition of url and the url-resp-text in the
+   definition of badurl-response-code each contain an imapurl as defined
+   by [2].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+6.  Acknowledgements
+
+   Thanks to the members of the LEMONADE working group for their input.
+   Special thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the examples.
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   The CATENATE extension does not raise any security considerations
+   that are not present for the base protocol or in the use of IMAP
+   URLs, and these issues are discussed in the IMAP [1] and IMAP URL [2]
+   documents.
+
+8.  IANA Considerations
+
+   IMAP4 capabilities are registered by publishing a standards track or
+   IESG approved experimental RFC.  The registry is currently located at
+   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities>.  This document
+   defines the CATENATE IMAP capability.  The IANA has added this
+   capability to the registry.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+Appendix A.  Examples
+
+   Lines not starting with "C: " or "S: " are continuations of the
+   previous lines.
+
+   The original message in examples 1 and 2 below (UID = 20) has the
+   following structure:
+
+
+      multipart/mixed MIME message with two body parts:
+
+      1.  text/plain
+
+      2.  application/x-zip-compressed
+
+   Example 1: The following example demonstrates how a CATENATE client
+   can replace an attachment in a draft message, without the need to
+   download it to the client and upload it back.
+
+   C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen \Draft $MDNSent) CATENATE
+    (URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;section=HEADER"
+    TEXT {42}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050907
+   C:  URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;section=1.MIME"
+    URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;section=1" TEXT {42}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050907
+   C:  URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=30" TEXT {44}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050907--
+   C: )
+   S: A003 OK catenate append completed
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+   Example 2: The following example demonstrates how the CATENATE
+   extension can be used to replace edited text in a draft message, as
+   well as header fields for the top level message part (e.g., Subject
+   has changed).  The previous version of the draft is marked as
+   \Deleted.  Note that the server also supports the UIDPLUS extension,
+   so the APPENDUID response code is returned in the successful OK
+   response to the APPEND command.
+
+   C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen \Draft $MDNSent) CATENATE (TEXT {738}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C: Return-Path: <bar@example.org>
+   C: Received: from [127.0.0.2]
+   C:           by rufus.example.org via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA;
+   C:           Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:57:07 +0000
+   C: Message-ID: <419399E1.6000505@example.org>
+   C: Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2004 16:57:05 +0000
+   C: From: Bob Ar <bar@example.org>
+   C: X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
+   C: MIME-Version: 1.0
+   C: To: foo@example.net
+   C: Subject: About our holiday trip
+   C: Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
+   C:               boundary="------------030308070208000400050907"
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050907
+   C: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
+   C: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
+   C:
+   C: Our travel agent has sent the updated schedule.
+   C:
+   C: Cheers,
+   C: Bob
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050907
+   C:  URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;Section=2.MIME"
+    URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;Section=2" TEXT {44}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050907--
+   C: )
+   S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 385759045 45] append Completed
+   C: A004 UID STORE 20 +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted)
+   S: A004 OK STORE completed
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+   Example 3: The following example demonstrates how the CATENATE
+   extension can be used to strip attachments.  Below, a PowerPoint
+   attachment was replaced by a small text part explaining that the
+   attachment was stripped.
+
+   C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen \Draft $MDNSent) CATENATE
+    (URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=21/;section=HEADER"
+    TEXT {42}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050903
+   C:  URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=21/;section=1.MIME"
+    URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=21/;section=1" TEXT {255}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050903
+   C: Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
+   C: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
+   C:
+   C: This body part contained a Power Point presentation that was
+   C: deleted upon your request.
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050903--
+   C: )
+   S: A003 OK append Completed
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+   Example 4: The following example demonstrates a failed APPEND
+   command.  The server returns the BADURL response code to indicate
+   that one of the provided URLs is invalid.  This example also
+   demonstrates how the CATENATE extension can be used to construct a
+   digest of several messages.
+
+   C: A003 APPEND Sent (\Seen $MDNSent) CATENATE (TEXT {541}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C: Return-Path: <foo@example.org>
+   C: Received: from [127.0.0.2]
+   C:           by rufus.example.org via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA;
+   C:           Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:57:07 +0000
+   C: Message-ID: <419399E1.6000505@example.org>
+   C: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2004 16:57:05 +0000
+   C: From: Farren Oo <foo@example.org>
+   C: X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
+   C: MIME-Version: 1.0
+   C: To: bar@example.org
+   C: Subject: Digest of the mailing list for today
+   C: Content-Type: multipart/digest;
+   C:               boundary="------------030308070208000400050904"
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050904
+   C:  URL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=11467" TEXT {42}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050904
+   C:  URL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=113330/;section=1.5.9"
+    TEXT {42}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050904
+   C:  URL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=11916" TEXT {44}
+   S: + Ready for literal data
+   C:
+   C: --------------030308070208000400050904--
+   C: )
+   S: A003 NO [BADURL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=113330;
+   section=1.5.9"] CATENATE append has failed, one message expunged
+
+   Note that the server could have validated the URLs as they were
+   received and therefore could have returned the tagged NO response
+   with BADURL response-code in place of any continuation request after
+   the URL was received.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+9.  Normative References
+
+   [1]  Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1",
+        RFC 3501, March 2003.
+
+   [2]  Newman, C., "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 2192, September 1997.
+
+   [3]  Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
+        MULTIAPPEND Extension", RFC 3502, March 2003.
+
+   [4]  Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001.
+
+   [5]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+        Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
+        RFC 2045, November 1996.
+
+   [6]  Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - UIDPLUS
+        extension", RFC 4315, December 2005.
+
+   [7]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
+        Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
+
+   [8]  Melnikov, A. and C. Daboo, "Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF",
+        RFC 4466, April 2006.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Peter W. Resnick
+   QUALCOMM Incorporated
+   5775 Morehouse Drive
+   San Diego, CA  92121-1714
+   US
+
+   Phone: +1 858 651 4478
+   EMail: presnick@qualcomm.com
+   URI:   http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 4469                IMAP CATENATE Extension               April 2006
+
+
+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.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   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.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Resnick                     Standards Track                    [Page 13]
+