idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-fax-dsn-extensions-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([ENH-CODES], [DSN]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 245 has weird spacing: '...for the purpo...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 1998) is 9477 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'ITU-FAX' is defined on line 221, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2234 (ref. 'ABNF') (Obsoleted by RFC 4234) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1891 (ref. 'DSN') (Obsoleted by RFC 3461) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1893 (ref. 'ENH-CODES') (Obsoleted by RFC 3463) -- No information found for draft-ietf-fax-requirements-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'FAX-REQ' -- No information found for draft-ietf-fax-scenarios-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'FAX-SCEN' -- No information found for draft-ietf-fax-spec-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'FAX-SPEC' -- No information found for draft-ietf-fax-itudc-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'ITU-FAX' -- No information found for draft-ietf-fax-tiffplus-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'TIFF' -- No information found for draft-ema-vpim-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'VPIM' Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 14 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Applications Area Dan Wing 2 Internet Draft Cisco Systems 3 November 19, 1997 4 Expires May 1998 5 draft-ietf-fax-dsn-extensions-00.txt 7 Extensions to Delivery Status Notifications for Fax 9 Status of this memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 12 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 13 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 17 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 18 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 19 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 21 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 22 "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 23 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Europe), 24 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 25 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 27 Copyright Notice 29 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved. 31 1. Abstract 33 This document describes new per-recipient Delivery Status 34 Notification fields [DSN] useful for billing fax PSTN calls, and 35 describes how to use existing Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 36 [ENH-CODES] for fax, and describes new Enhanced Mail System Status 37 Codes specifically for fax. 39 2. Introduction 41 The fax specification [FAX-SPEC] describes the behavior of SMTP 42 servers, fax onramps, and fax offramps. 44 [FAX-REQ] and [FAX-SCEN] should be consulted for detailed background 45 information (XXX - text from [FAX-REQ, FAX-SCEN] should be included 46 here). 48 2.1. Extensions to Delivery Status Notifications 50 SMTP does not provide a mechanism to indicate the 'cost' associated 51 with a message. Although a large message can cost more (network 52 bandwidth, transmission time, disk storage, processing time to 53 encode/ decode), there typically isn't a direct cost attributable to 54 an email message. 56 Fax messages are simply encoded as a MIME type [TIFF] and sent as 57 normal email messages. However, a fax offramp functions as a gateway 58 between SMTP and the PSTN. Costs are always associated with PSTN 59 calls. These costs range from (at the lowest cost) a business 60 telephone line itself with free local calls to (at the highest cost) 61 a business telephone line making international telephone calls. 62 These costs must be billed. 64 It is desirable for users to audit the charges that are made to their 65 bills, and a Delivery Status Notification that is sent to them (and 66 possibly used by the billing system itself) provides a convenient 67 method of verifying the accuracy of a bill. 69 2.2. Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 71 While Enhanced Mail System Status Codes [ENH-CODES] is quite complete 72 in its description of events specific to email, it does not provide 73 error codes which map directly to all the error codes necessary for 74 other services that are proposed to run over SMTP, such as VPIM 75 [VPIM] or FPIM [FAX-SPEC]. 77 This document describes how existing codes from [ENH-CODES] can be 78 used with a fax offramp, and documents new codes that are necessary 79 to support fax offramps. 81 2.3. Definitions 83 This document uses several terms which aren't in common use. 85 onramp: A device which receives an incoming fax call, translates the 86 fax image to [TIFF], and can send the message to an SMTP server. 87 An onramp can be diskless and have limited memory capacity. 89 offramp: A device which receives an SMTP message in [TIFF] format 90 and calls a fax machine, translates the [TIFF] message to a fax 91 image, and transmits the fax image to the remote fax machine. 92 An offramp can be diskless and have limited memory capacity. 94 PSTN: Public Switched Telephone Network. 96 2.4. Discussion of this Draft 98 This draft is being discussed on the "ietf-fax" mailing list. To 99 subscribe, send a message to: 100 ietf-fax-request@imc.org 101 with the line: 102 subscribe 103 in the body of the message. Archives are available from 104 http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax. 106 3. New Per-recipient DSN Extension Codes 108 Two new per-recipient extension fields, as described in [DSN], are 109 defined using the format described in [ABNF]: 111 extension-field = call-length / call-type 113 call-length = "Call-Length" ":" call-seconds 114 call-seconds = 1*DIGIT 116 call-type = "Call-Type" ":" billing-rate 117 billing-rate = "LD" / "local" / "international" / billing-ext 118 billing-ext = "X-" vendorname "-" *ALPHA / *DIGIT 119 vendorname = *ALPHA 121 XXX - needs significantly more work 123 4. Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 125 [ENH-CODES] allows new codes to be defined. The following table maps 126 fax-specific codes to [ENH-CODES] codes where possible, and defines 127 new fax-specific codes if [ENH-CODES] doesn't already have a suitable 128 mapping. 130 4.1. Use of Existing Enhanced Mail System Status Codes by Fax 132 Many of the codes described in [ENH-CODES] map perfectly to fax 133 offramp failure and success codes. 135 XXX - do we want to overload these at all?? 137 no such telephone number = 5.1.1 (Bad destination mailbox address) 138 The mailbox specified in the address does not exist. For 139 Internet mail names, this means the address portion to the 140 left of the "@" sign is invalid. This code is only useful 141 for permanent failures. 143 unable to parse telephone number = 5.1.3 (Bad destination mailbox 144 address syntax) 145 The destination address was syntactically invalid. This can 146 apply to any field in the address. This code is only useful 147 for permanent failures. 149 busy = X.4.1 (No answer from host) 150 The outbound connection attempt was not answered, either 151 because the remote system was busy, or otherwise unable to 152 take a call. This is useful only as a persistent transient 153 error. 155 no answer = X.3.2 (System not accepting network messages) 156 The host on which the mailbox is resident is not accepting 157 messages. Examples of such conditions include an immanent 158 shutdown, excessive load, or system maintenance. This is 159 useful for both permanent and permanent transient errors. 161 4.2. New Enhanced Mail System Status Codes for Fax 163 [ENH-CODES] describes that status codes have the following format: 165 status-code = class "." subject "." detail 166 class = "2"/"4"/"5" 167 subject = 1*3digit 168 detail = 1*3digit 170 Fax-specific codes will have a subject of 8. 172 XXX -- it would probably be better to more carefully specify these to 173 correspond with the "subject"s that already exist (and define new 174 detail codes) instead of a new "subject". 176 X.8.X Fax Offramp Status 178 The fax offramp status codes refer to events that are specific 179 to a device dialing a remote phone number. 181 The new fax-specific codes are: 183 no carrier = X.X.X 184 XXX - description 186 unable to train = X.X.X 187 XXX - description 189 no confirmation received from remote machine = X.X.X 190 XXX - description 192 5. Security Considerations 194 Security considerations are not (yet) described in this memo. 196 6. Acknowledgments 198 XXX 200 7. References 202 [ABNF] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 203 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. 205 [DSN] K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status 206 Notifications", RFC 1891, January 1996. 208 [ENH-CODES] G. Vaudreuil, "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 209 1893, January 1996. 211 [FAX-REQ] L. Masinter, "Requirements for Internet FAX", Internet 212 Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-requirements-XX.txt. 214 [FAX-SCEN] D. Wing, "Scenarios for Delivery of FAX messages over 215 SMTP", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax- 216 scenarios-XX.txt. 218 [FAX-SPEC] L. Masinter, D.Wing, "Fax Profile for Internet Mail", 219 Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-spec-XX.txt 221 [ITU-FAX] D. Crocker, "PROCEDURES FOR THE TRANSFER OF FACSIMILE DATA 222 VIA INTERNET MAIL", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft- 223 ietf-fax-itudc-XX.txt. 225 [TIFF] L. McIntyre, S. Zilles, R. Buckley, D. Venable, "File Format 226 for Internet Fax", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft- 227 ietf-fax-tiffplus-XX.txt. 229 [VPIM] G. Vaudreuil, G. Parsons, "Voice Profile for Internet Mail - 230 version 2", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ema-vpim- 231 XX.txt. 233 9. Copyright 235 Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1997. All Rights Reserved. 237 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 238 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 239 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 240 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 241 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 242 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 243 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 244 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 245 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 246 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 247 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 248 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 249 English. 251 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 252 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 254 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 255 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 256 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 257 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 258 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 259 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 261 10. Author's Address 263 Dan Wing 264 Cisco Systems, Inc. 265 101 Cooper Street 266 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 268 Phone: +1 408 457 5200 269 Fax: +1 408 457 5208 270 EMail: dwing@cisco.com