Registration of further IMAP/JMAP keywords and mailbox name attributes
draft-ietf-mailmaint-messageflag-mailboxattribute-11

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mailmaint-messageflag-mailboxattribute-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the IMAP and JMAP Keywords registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-jmap-keywords/

seventeen new keywords are to be registered as follows:

Keyword: $notify
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that a notification should be presented for this message.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $muted
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the server that the user is not interested in future replies to a particular thread
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $followed
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the server that the user is particularly interested in future replies to a particular thread.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $memo
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that a message is a note-to-self from the user regarding another message in the same thread.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $hasmemo
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that a message has an associated memo with the $memo keyword.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $hasattachment
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that a message has an attachment.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $hasnoattachment
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that a message does not have an attachment.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $autosent
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that a message was sent automatically as a response due to a user rule or setting.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $unsubscribed
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that it has unsubscribed from the thread this message is on.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $canunsubscribe
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that this message has an [RFC8058]-compliant List-Unsubscribe header.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $imported
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that this message was imported from another mailbox.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $istrusted
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that the authenticity of the from name and email address have been verified by the server.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $maskedemail
Type: SHARED
Usage: LIMITED
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that the message was received via an alias created for an individual sender.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $new
Type: SHARED
Usage: LIMITED
Scope: BOTH
Comments: Indicate to the client that a message should be made more prominent to the user due to a recent action.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $MailFlagBit0
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope:
Comments: Bit 0 part of a 3-bit bitmask that defines the color of the flag when the message has the system flag \Flagged set. See [ RFC-to-be; Section 3 ] for details.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $MailFlagBit1
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope:
Comments: Bit 1 part of a 3-bit bitmask that defines the color of the flag when the message has the system flag \Flagged set. See [ RFC-to-be; Section 3 ] for details.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Keyword: $MailFlagBit2
Type: SHARED
Usage: COMMON
Scope:
Comments: Bit 2 part of a 3-bit bitmask that defines the color of the flag when the message has the system flag \Flagged set. See [ RFC-to-be; Section 3 ] for details.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should the scope be set to for the keywords: $MailFlagBit0. $MailFlagBit1, and $MailFlagBit2?

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-mailbox-name-attributes/

three new attributes are to be registered as follows:

Attribute Name: Snoozed
Description: Identifies the mailbox where temporarily snoozed messages are stored.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Usage Notes:

Attribute Name: Scheduled
Description: Identifies the mailbox where messages scheduled to be sent at a later time are stored.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Usage Notes:

Attribute Name: Memos
Description: Identifies the mailbox where user-created memo messages are stored.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Usage Notes:

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-10-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: andy@hxr.us, draft-ietf-mailmaint-messageflag-mailboxattribute@ietf.org, fenton@bluepopcorn.net, mailmaint-chairs@ietf.org, mailmaint@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registration of further IMAP/JMAP keywords and mailbox name attributes) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Mail Maintenance WG (mailmaint) to
consider the following document: - 'Registration of further IMAP/JMAP
keywords and mailbox name attributes'
  as Informational
  RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-10-14. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a number of keywords and mailbox name
  attributes that have been in use across different server and client
  implementations.  It defines the intended use of these keywords and
  mailbox name attributes.  This document registers all of these with
  IANA to avoid name collisions.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mailmaint-messageflag-mailboxattribute/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document describes existing practice in order to add new IMAP/JMAP keywords and mailbox attributes to the appropriate IANA registries.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

There was a moderate amoount of discussion, primarily as a result of WG last call and a second last call issued as a result of document changes. None of the consensus
was particularly rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

Much the opposite; as noted above, there has been very little comment.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

The document is informational. It has been written to document existing usage by some implementations, but doesnÕt cite those implementations.

Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses keywords and attributes that are internal to IMAP and JMAP. No external reviews are thought to be needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal expert review criteria are applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

N/A Ð no YANG involvement.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

None of the document is written in a formal language.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

At the beginning of the shepherding process, the shepherd did a review of the document, which resulted in significant revisions. The document appears ready, although the shepherd suspects that some clarification of the IANA requests will still be required, which can happen at a later stage in the publication process.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

The ART topics are the most relevant. The working group from which this originates would be the appropriate place for IMAP concerns to be raised, and none have been. There is enough overlap with the JMAP WG that any concerns there would have surfaced.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational status is being requested. This seems appropriate for describing and documenting existing practice. Datatracker reflects this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd has polled authors and they are not aware of any relevant IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Authors are willing to be listed. There are 2 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Idnits identifies only an instance of non-ASCII characters in the document, which can be corrected in the editorial process.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are all normative and seem correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No downrefs have been seen.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No existing RFC status is changed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The shepherd has some concern about the IANA considerations, specifically that the template shown in the IANA considerations does not align with the form of the registries being added to. It was noted that RFC 5788, which was the source of other entries in the registry, also doesnÕt align. Hopefully this can be resolved in interactions with IANA during the publication process.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document describes existing practice in order to add new IMAP/JMAP keywords and mailbox attributes to the appropriate IANA registries.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

There was a moderate amoount of discussion, primarily as a result of WG last call and a second last call issued as a result of document changes. None of the consensus
was particularly rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

Much the opposite; as noted above, there has been very little comment.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

The document is informational. It has been written to document existing usage by some implementations, but doesnÕt cite those implementations.

Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses keywords and attributes that are internal to IMAP and JMAP. No external reviews are thought to be needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal expert review criteria are applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

N/A Ð no YANG involvement.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

None of the document is written in a formal language.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

At the beginning of the shepherding process, the shepherd did a review of the document, which resulted in significant revisions. The document appears ready, although the shepherd suspects that some clarification of the IANA requests will still be required, which can happen at a later stage in the publication process.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

The ART topics are the most relevant. The working group from which this originates would be the appropriate place for IMAP concerns to be raised, and none have been. There is enough overlap with the JMAP WG that any concerns there would have surfaced.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational status is being requested. This seems appropriate for describing and documenting existing practice. Datatracker reflects this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd has polled authors and they are not aware of any relevant IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Authors are willing to be listed. There are 2 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Idnits identifies only an instance of non-ASCII characters in the document, which can be corrected in the editorial process.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are all normative and seem correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No downrefs have been seen.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No existing RFC status is changed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The shepherd has some concern about the IANA considerations, specifically that the template shown in the IANA considerations does not align with the form of the registries being added to. It was noted that RFC 5788, which was the source of other entries in the registry, also doesnÕt align. Hopefully this can be resolved in interactions with IANA during the publication process.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries.

Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document describes existing practice in order to add new IMAP/JMAP keywords and mailbox attributes to the appropriate IANA registries.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

There was very little discussion about this draft other than a WG last-call comment and review comments from the Document Shepherd. Nothing was controversial.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

Much the opposite; as noted above, there has been very little comment.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

The document is informational. It has been written to document existing usage by some implementations, but doesnÕt cite those implementations.

Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.

The document addresses keywords and attributes that are internal to IMAP and JMAP. No external reviews are thought to be needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal expert review criteria are applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?

N/A Ð no YANG involvement.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

None of the document is written in a formal language.

Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

At the beginning of the shepherding process, the shepherd did a review of the document, which resulted in significant revisions. The document appears ready, although the shepherd suspects that some clarification of the IANA requests will still be required, which can happen at a later stage in the publication process.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

The ART topics are the most relevant. The working group from which this originates would be the appropriate place for IMAP concerns to be raised, and none have been. There is enough overlap with the JMAP WG that any concerns there would have surfaced.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational status is being requested. This seems appropriate for describing and documenting existing practice. Datatracker reflects this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd has polled authors and they are not aware of any relevant IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Authors are willing to be listed. There are 2 authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Idnits identifies only an instance of non-ASCII characters in the document, which can be corrected in the editorial process.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

References are all normative and seem correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?

All normative references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No downrefs have been seen.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No existing RFC status is changed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The shepherd has some concern about the IANA considerations, specifically that the template shown in the IANA considerations does not align with the form of the registries being added to. It was noted that RFC 5788, which was the source of other entries in the registry, also doesnÕt align. Hopefully this can be resolved in interactions with IANA during the publication process.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries.