RFC 9585: IMAP Response Code for Command Progress Notifications

Abstract

This document defines a new IMAP untagged response code, "INPROGRESS", that provides progress notifications regarding the status of long-running commands.¶

1. Introduction

IMAP commands [RFC9051] can require a considerable amount of time to be completed by the server. In these cases, the client has no information about the progress of the commands. It is already possible to expose updates with a generic untagged response, like "* OK Still on it, 57% done"; however, this does not provide a standard way to communicate with the client and does not allow the server to inform the client of the progress of the long-running actions.¶

This document extends the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) [RFC9051] with:¶

2. Conventions Used in This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

The word "can" (not "may") is used to refer to a possible circumstance or situation, as opposed to an optional facility of the protocol.¶

Conventions for notations are as in [RFC9051] and [RFC5530].¶

In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server, respectively. Note that each line includes the terminating CRLF.¶

3. CAPABILITY Identification

IMAP servers that support this extension MUST include "INPROGRESS" in the response list to the CAPABILITY command.¶

4. The "INPROGRESS" Response Code

The server MAY send the "INPROGRESS" response code to notify the client about the progress of the commands in execution or simply to prevent the client from timing out and terminating the connection. The notifications MAY be sent for any IMAP command. If the server elects to send notifications, it is RECOMMENDED that these are sent every 10-15 seconds.¶

The response code is meant to appear embedded inside an untagged OK reply. The response code MUST NOT appear in a tagged response (the command has completed and further progress notifications make no sense).¶

The response code MAY embed a list of details, which appear in the following order:¶

If the response code does not embed a list of details, all details are to be interpreted as NIL.¶

The server can provide the progress details with different degrees of completeness:¶

- bare keepalive
  * OK [INPROGRESS] Hang in there...
- keepalive with an indication of the command tag
  * OK [INPROGRESS ("tag" NIL NIL)] Hang in there...
- progress notification with unknown GOAL
  * OK [INPROGRESS ("tag" 175 NIL)] Processed 175 items so far
- progress notification with an indication of the GOAL
  * OK [INPROGRESS ("tag" 175 1000)] Processed 17% of the items

Examples:¶

  C: A001 search text "this will be slow"
    [13 seconds later]
  S: * OK [INPROGRESS ("A001" 454 1000)] Processed 45% of the items
    [14 seconds later]
  S: * OK [INPROGRESS ("A001" 999 1000)] Processed 99% of the items
    [5 seconds later]
  S: * SEARCH 447 735
  S: A001 OK Search completed (23.387 + 0.004 + 0.017 secs).

  C: A003 COPY 2000:4000 Meeting-Minutes
    [12 seconds later]
  S: * OK [INPROGRESS ("A003" 175 2001)] Still working on this...
    [14 seconds later]
  S: * OK [INPROGRESS ("A003" 440 2001)] Still working on this...
    [13 seconds later]
  S: * OK [INPROGRESS ("A003" 987 2001)] Still working on this...
    [14 seconds later]
  S: * OK [INPROGRESS ("A003" 1388 2001)] Still working on this...
    [14 seconds later]
  S: * OK [INPROGRESS ("A003" 1876 2001)] Still working on this...
    [9 seconds later]
  S: A003 OK Copy completed

PROGRESS and GOAL SHOULD be counts of the kind of item being processed -- in most cases, messages counts. If that is not possible, the counts SHOULD be percentages, with GOAL set to 100 and PROGRESS varying between 0 and 99.¶

The server SHOULD NOT send a progress notification where PROGRESS equals GOAL, as that would mean the command is completed. In that case, the proper tagged response should be emitted instead.¶

If the command completes before the first server notification deadline, there will be no notifications at all. The client MUST assume PROGRESS to be 0 and GOAL to be unknown until the server issues a notification for the command.¶

While the server SHOULD keep GOAL constant and PROGRESS monotonically increasing, there are circumstances where this might not be possible. The client MUST be prepared to handle cases where the server cannot keep GOAL constant and/or PROGRESS monotonically increasing. When the GOAL changes or the PROGRESS goes backward, the RECOMMENDED interpretation is that the previous GOAL has been reached, but the server discovered that further (long-running) work is required (with a new known or unknown GOAL).¶

The client MAY disregard progress notifications entirely or process them only in relation to specific commands. If a user interface is involved, it is the client's duty to decide which of these notifications should emerge to the user interface and/or modify the user's ability to interact in their presence, since this may differ based on implementation details.¶

Also, the client MUST NOT consider the values to be authoritative for any other use than evaluating the progress of the commands. For example, the client must not use the GOAL field in place of the proper output of a SEARCH command to know the number of messages in a folder.¶

5. Formal Syntax

The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] notation. Elements not defined here can be found in the formal syntax of the ABNF [RFC5234] and IMAP [RFC9051] specifications.¶

Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-insensitive. The use of uppercase or lowercase characters to define token strings are for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.¶

inprogress-tag              = quoted / nil
inprogress-state-unknown    = nil    SP nil
inprogress-state-counting   = number SP nil
inprogress-state-known-goal = number SP nz-number

inprogress-state = inprogress-state-unknown
                 / inprogress-state-counting
                 / inprogress-state-known-goal

resp-text-code =/ "INPROGRESS" [ SP "(" inprogress-tag SP
                                        inprogress-state ")" ]

6. Security Considerations

The details of the response code are not expected to disclose any information that isn't currently available from the command output. The progress details could be obtained anyway by sending a series of commands with different workloads -- by either constructing data sets or searching in the appropriate way.¶

The client must protect itself against data sent by a malicious server. Specifically, the client should guard against values that can cause arithmetic exceptions, like GOAL = 0, GOAL/VALUE < 0, GOAL/VALUE ≥ 2³² (these are not possible within a correct implementation of the ABNF syntax above), and VALUE > GOAL. In these cases, the notification MUST be disregarded.¶

7. IANA Considerations

IANA has added "INPROGRESS" to the "IMAP Response Codes" registry located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-response-codes>, with a reference to this document.¶

IANA had added "INPROGRESS" to the "IMAP Capabilities" registry located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-capabilities>, with a reference to this document.¶

8. Normative References

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC5234]

Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

[RFC5530]

Gulbrandsen, A., "IMAP Response Codes", RFC 5530, DOI 10.17487/RFC5530, May 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5530>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC9051]

Melnikov, A., Ed. and B. Leiba, Ed., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2", RFC 9051, DOI 10.17487/RFC9051, August 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9051>.