idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-fax-dsn-extensions-01.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 == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 278 lines 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 ([RFC2305], [RFC1891], [RFC1893], [RFC1894], [EIFAX]), 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 239 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC1891-1894' is mentioned on line 44, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 1891 (Obsoleted by RFC 3461) == Missing Reference: 'ENH-CODES' is mentioned on line 162, but not defined -- No information found for draft-ietf-fax-eifax-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'EIFAX' -- No information found for draft-ietf-fax-requirements-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'FAX-REQ' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1891 (Obsoleted by RFC 3461) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1893 (Obsoleted by RFC 3463) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1894 (Obsoleted by RFC 3464) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1303 (ref. 'RFC2303') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2305 (Obsoleted by RFC 3965) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2234 (Obsoleted by RFC 4234) Summary: 16 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Fax Working Group Dan Wing 2 Internet Draft Cisco Systems 3 June 8, 1998 Larry Masinter 4 Expires November 1998 Xerox PARC 5 draft-ietf-fax-dsn-extensions-01.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 view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check 22 the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts 23 Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net 24 (Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au 25 (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu 26 (US West Coast). 28 Copyright Notice 30 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved. 32 1. Abstract 34 The Internet fax specification [RFC2305] describes a simple mode of 35 operation for fax over SMTP. [EIFAX] requires that offramp gateways 36 implemented using SMTP implement DSN [RFC1891], and this document 37 provides extensions to message format of delivery status 38 notifications [RFC1894] and error codes [RFC1893] to provide better 39 support for fax offramps implemented as SMTP servers. 41 2. Introduction 43 This document describes the following enhancements to DSN 44 [RFC1891-1894] for fax: 46 * fields for call length, dialed number, and number 47 of pages transmitted (section 3) 48 * enhanced status codes for fax-specific errors (section 4) 50 [FAX-REQ] should be consulted for detailed background 51 information. 53 This draft is being discussed on the "ietf-fax" mailing list. To 54 subscribe, send a message to: 55 ietf-fax-request@imc.org 56 with the line: 57 subscribe 58 in the body of the message. Archives are available from 59 . 61 2.1. Definitions 63 offramp: A device which receives an SMTP message, calls a fax 64 machine on the GSTN, translates the incoming SMTP message to a fax 65 image, and transmits the fax image to the remote fax machine over 66 the GSTN. 68 GSTN: Global Switched Telephone Network. 70 3. Delivery Status Notification Message Fields 72 A message that is gatewayed by a fax offramp will cause a telephone 73 call to be made. This section describes mechanisms for the fax 74 offramp to provide information about the telephone call: the the 75 length of the call, number of pages transmitted, and the dialed 76 telephone number. 78 3.1. New Message Fields 80 Two new per-recipient extension fields, as described in [RFC1894 81 section 2.3], are defined using the ABNF format described in 82 [RFC2234]: 84 extension-field = call-duration / transmitted-pages 86 call-duration = "Fax-Call-Duration" ":" elapsed-time 87 transmitted-pages = "Fax-Transmitted-Pages" ":" xmit-pages 89 elapsed-time = hour ":" minute ":" second [ ":" hundred ] 91 hour = 2DIGIT 92 minute = 2DIGIT 93 second = 2DIGIT 94 hundred = 2DIGIT 96 xmit-pages = 1*DIGIT 98 Examples: 100 Fax-Call-Duration: 06:30:23.32 101 Fax-Call-Duration: 00:00:45 103 Fax-Transmitted-Pages: 104 104 Fax-Transmitted-Pages: 0 106 3.2. Use of Existing Message Fields 108 The Final-Recipient field can indicate the actual number dialed. 109 Reference [RFC1894, section 2.3.2], for the format of the 110 Final-Recipient field. 112 Delivery Status Notifications compliant with this document should 113 have an "address-type" is "e164". The "generic-address" is a 114 telephone number in the format of "global-phone", which is 115 defined in [RFC2303]. 117 Examples: 119 Final-Recipient: e164; +1-408-457-5208 120 Final-Recipient: e164; +599-78760 122 4. Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 124 While Enhanced Mail System Status Codes [RFC1893] is quite complete 125 in its description of events specific to email, it does not provide 126 error codes which map directly to all the error codes necessary for 127 other services such as gatewaying to GSTN-based fax. 129 This document describes how existing codes from [ENH-CODES] can be 130 used with a fax offramp, and documents new codes that are necessary 131 to support fax offramps. [ENH-CODES] allows new codes to be defined. 132 The following table maps fax-specific codes to [ENH-CODES] codes 133 where possible, and defines new fax-specific codes if [ENH-CODES] 134 doesn't already have a suitable mapping. 136 4.1. New Enhanced Mail System Status Codes for Fax 138 The new fax-specific per-recipient codes are: 140 "X.2.50 no carrier" 142 The number was successfully dialed, but no fax carrier 143 was ever heard by the sending fax modem. This is 144 useful as a persistent transient (4.X.X) or permanent 145 error (5.X.X). 147 "X.2.51 unable to train" 149 The number was successfully dialed, and a fax carrier 150 was heard, but the fax modem was unable to communicate 151 with the remote fax machine successfully. This is 152 useful as a persistent transient error (4.X.X). 154 "X.2.52 no confirmation received" 156 After transmission of a page to the remote fax machine the 157 remote fax machine did not acknowledge receiving the page. 158 This is useful as a persistent transient error (4.X.X). 160 4.2. Use of Existing Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 162 Many of the codes described in [ENH-CODES] map well to fax 163 offramp failure and success codes, and should be used to 164 promote interoperability between fax and email. The text 165 shown in parentheses is from [RFC1893]. 167 "X.1.1 No such telephone number" 168 ("Bad destination mailbox address" in [RFC1893]) 170 The telephone number does not exist or is not a dialable 171 telephone number. This code is only useful for permanent 172 failures (5.X.X). 174 "X.1.3 Unable to parse telephone number" 175 ("Bad destination mailbox address syntax" in [RFC1893]) 177 The destination address was syntactically invalid. This can 178 apply to any field in the address. This code is only useful 179 for permanent failures (5.X.X). 181 "X.4.1 No answer" 182 ("No answer from host" in [RFC1893]) 184 The outbound connection attempt was not answered. This is 185 useful for both permanent (5.X.X) and persistent transient 186 error (4.X.X). 188 "X.3.2 Persistently Busy" 189 ("System not accepting network messages" in [RFC1893]) 191 The dialed telephone number was busy. This is useful for both 192 permanent (5.X.X) and presistent transient errors (4.X.X). 194 5. Security Considerations 196 The Final-Recipient could disclose long-distance access codes that 197 would be otherwise unknown to the sender. 199 6. Acknowledgments 201 7. References 203 [EIFAX] L. Masinter, D. Wing, "Extended Facsimile Using Internet 204 Mail", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-eifax-XX.txt 206 [FAX-REQ] L. Masinter, "Requirements for Internet FAX", Internet 207 Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-requirements-XX.txt. 209 [RFC1891] K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status 210 Notifications", RFC 1891, January 1996. 212 [RFC1893] G. Vaudreuil, "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 213 1893, January 1996. 215 [RFC1894] K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for 216 Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, January 1996. 218 [RFC2303] C. Allocchio, "Minimal PSTN address format in Internet 219 Mail", RFC 1303, March 1998. 221 [RFC2305] K. Toyoda, H. Ohno, J. Murai, D. Wing, "A Simple Mode of 222 Facsimile Using Internet Mail", RFC 2305, March 1998. 224 [RFC2234] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 225 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. 227 9. Copyright 229 Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1998. All Rights Reserved. 231 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 232 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 233 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 234 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 235 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 236 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 237 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 238 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 239 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 240 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 241 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 242 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 243 English. 245 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 246 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 248 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 249 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 250 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 251 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 252 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 253 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 255 10. Authors' Addresses 257 Dan Wing 258 Cisco Systems, Inc. 259 101 Cooper Street 260 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 262 Phone: +1 408 457 5200 263 Fax: +1 408 457 5208 264 EMail: dwing@cisco.com 266 Larry Masinter 267 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 268 3333 Coyote Hill Road 269 Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA 271 Fax: +1 415 812 4333 272 EMail: masinter@parc.xerox.com