Another KEP proposal: On IMAP-metadata (annotations)

[Florian v. Samson]

Hello all,

IMO the Kolab format MUST reference the correct specification for the 
IMAP-metadata (annotations) to use.  

Hence I propose this mini-KEP for the Kolab-format specification:

Kolab-clients and -servers MUST support IMAP-metadata (annotations) 
specified in RFC5464 [1].

I see two major "pros":
- Implementers of client-side IMAP-libraries know what to implement / expect 
from the Kolab-server.  (Specifically it took us quite a while to analyse 
this an come to a concise conclusion in the evolution-kolab project: [2])
- When adapting an existing PIM-client for the use with Kolab, it is very 
hard to convince the maintainers of the IMAP-implementation of that client 
to integrate an IMAP-metadata (annotations) extension which is based on a 
long outdated RFC-draft, which is quite incompatible to the final RFC5464.

I also see a "con":
- The Kolab-community will have to provide patches to the IMAP-server(s) 
used in the Kolab-server (Cyrus and/or Dovecot), again.  Still, as on the 
client-side, these patches supposedly will be received much more welcome 
upstream than those implementing a long outdated RFC-draft, which is quite 
incompatible to the final RFC5464.

I also propose enhancing the *current* Kolab format specification with a 
concise statement, which is absolutely missing, currently:

Kolab-clients and -servers MUST support IMAP-metadata (annotations) 
according to the "IMAP ANNOTATEMORE Extension"-draft-05 [3].

It took us (when doing evolution-kolab) quite a while to research which 
version of the draft is implemented in the Cyrus-IMAPd as of Kolab 2.2.4, 
as this is not noted or even hinted anywhere.  We fiercely hope that we got 
that analysis right.

Cheers
	Florian

References:
[1]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5464>
[2]: <http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/evolution-kolab/wiki/RFCReference>
[3]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-05>