idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-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 == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 286 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 ([RFC2298], [RFC1894]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 119: '... number which SHOULD be in the forma...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 259 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 (January 1999) is 9230 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) == Missing Reference: 'ENH-CODES' is mentioned on line 173, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'EIFAX' is defined on line 216, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'FAX-REQ' is defined on line 219, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'MEDIA-FEATURES' is defined on line 222, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1891' is defined on line 226, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2305' is defined on line 238, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2234' is defined on line 241, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- 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' -- No information found for draft-masinter-media-features-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'MEDIA-FEATURES' ** 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2298 (Obsoleted by RFC 3798) Summary: 17 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 8 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 August 3, 1998 4 Expires January 1999 5 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-extensions-00.txt 7 Fax Offramp Extensions to DSN and MDN 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 Offramp fax gateways need a standard format for indicating 35 fax-specific information such as call length, actual number 36 dialed, pages transmitted, and other information. 38 This memo describes a format usable by fax offramps for 39 generating Message Disposition Notifications [RFC2298] and 40 Delivery Status Notifications [RFC1894]. 42 2. Introduction 44 This document describes extensions useful for fax offramps. 46 These extensions can be used in Message Disposition Notifications 47 [RFC2298] or Delivery Status Notifications [RFC1894], as appropriate 48 for the offramp implementation. Fax offramps implemented as MUAs 49 (typically using POP or IMAP) will use the MDN format, and fax 50 offramps implemented as MTAs (SMTP servers) will use the DSN format. 52 The fields defined in this document are: 54 * call length 55 * dialed number 56 * number of pages transmitted 57 * media features 59 This draft is being discussed on the "ietf-fax" mailing list. To 60 subscribe, send a message to: 61 ietf-fax-request@imc.org 62 with the line: 63 subscribe 64 in the body of the message. Archives are available from 65 . 67 3. Extensions for use by DSN and MDN 69 A message that is gatewayed by a fax offramp will cause a telephone 70 call to be made. This section describes mechanisms for the fax 71 offramp to provide information about the telephone call: the the 72 length of the call, number of pages transmitted, and the dialed 73 telephone number. 75 The following extensions are available to both DSN [RFC1894] 76 and MDN [RFC2298] messages. 78 3.1. New Message Fields 80 For a DSN message, the following per-recipient fields are defined 81 (section 2.3 of [RFC1894]). For an MDN message, the following 82 extension fields are defined (section 3.1 of [RFC2298]). 84 extension-field = [ call-duration CRLF ] 85 [ transmitted-pages CRLF ] 86 [ media-features CRLF ] 88 call-duration = "Call-Duration" ":" elapsed-time 89 transmitted-pages = "Transmitted-Pages" ":" xmit-pages 90 media-features = "Media-Features" ":" media-feature-tags 92 elapsed-time = hour ":" minute ":" second 94 hour = 2DIGIT 95 minute = 2DIGIT 96 second = 2DIGIT 98 xmit-pages = 1*DIGIT 99 media-feature-tags = *text 101 Examples: 103 Call-Duration: 06:30:23 104 Call-Duration: 00:00:45 106 Transmitted-Pages: 104 107 Transmitted-Pages: 0 109 If a coverpage is generated and transmitted by the offramp, 110 its pagecount is included in the xmit-pages value. 112 3.2. Use of Existing Message Fields 114 The Final-Recipient field (which is present in both [RFC1894] 115 and [RFC2298] message formats) can be used to indicate the actual 116 number dialed. 118 The "address-type" is "phone". The "generic-address" is a telephone 119 number which SHOULD be in the format of "global-phone" (as defined in 120 [RFC2303]). 122 Examples: 124 Final-Recipient: phone; +1-408-457-5208 125 Final-Recipient: phone; +599-78760 126 Final-Recipient: phone; 1234 128 4. Extensions for DSN 130 The following extensions are only applicable to DSN reports 131 [RFC1894]. 133 4.1. Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 135 While Enhanced Mail System Status Codes [RFC1893] is quite complete 136 in its description of events specific to email, it does not provide 137 error codes which map directly to all the error codes necessary for 138 other services such as gatewaying to GSTN-based fax. 140 This document describes how existing codes from [ENH-CODES] can be 141 used with a fax offramp, and documents new codes that are necessary 142 to support fax offramps. [ENH-CODES] allows new codes to be defined. 143 The following table maps fax-specific codes to [ENH-CODES] codes 144 where possible, and defines new fax-specific codes if [ENH-CODES] 145 doesn't already have a suitable mapping. 147 4.1.1. New Enhanced Mail System Status Codes for Fax 149 The new fax-specific per-recipient codes are: 151 "X.2.50 no carrier" 153 The number was successfully dialed, but no fax carrier 154 was ever heard by the sending fax modem. This is 155 useful as a persistent transient (4.X.X) or permanent 156 error (5.X.X). 158 "X.2.51 unable to train" 160 The number was successfully dialed, and a fax carrier 161 was heard, but the fax modem was unable to communicate 162 with the remote fax machine successfully. This is 163 useful as a persistent transient error (4.X.X). 165 "X.2.52 no confirmation received" 167 After transmission of a page to the remote fax machine the 168 remote fax machine did not acknowledge receiving the page. 169 This is useful as a persistent transient error (4.X.X). 171 4.1.2. Use of Existing Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 173 Many of the codes described in [ENH-CODES] map well to fax 174 offramp failure and success codes, and should be used to 175 promote interoperability between fax and email. The text 176 shown in parentheses is from [RFC1893]. 178 "X.1.1 No such telephone number" 179 ("Bad destination mailbox address" in [RFC1893]) 181 The telephone number does not exist or is not a dialable 182 telephone number. This code is only useful for permanent 183 failures (5.X.X). 185 "X.1.3 Unable to parse telephone number" 186 ("Bad destination mailbox address syntax" in [RFC1893]) 188 The destination address was syntactically invalid. This can 189 apply to any field in the address. This code is only useful 190 for permanent failures (5.X.X). 192 "X.4.1 No answer" 193 ("No answer from host" in [RFC1893]) 195 The outbound connection attempt was not answered. This is 196 useful for both permanent (5.X.X) and persistent transient 197 error (4.X.X). 199 "X.3.2 Persistently Busy" 200 ("System not accepting network messages" in [RFC1893]) 202 The dialed telephone number was busy. This is useful for both 203 permanent (5.X.X) and presistent transient errors (4.X.X). 205 5. Security Considerations 207 The Final-Recipient could disclose long-distance access codes that 208 would be otherwise unknown to the sender. 210 6. Acknowledgments 212 XXX 214 7. References 216 [EIFAX] L. Masinter, D. Wing, "Extended Facsimile Using Internet 217 Mail", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-eifax-XX.txt 219 [FAX-REQ] L. Masinter, "Requirements for Internet FAX", Internet 220 Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-requirements-XX.txt. 222 [MEDIA-FEATURES] L. Masinter, K. Holtman, D. Wing, "Media Features 223 for Display, Print, and Fax", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, 224 draft-masinter-media-features-XX.txt. 226 [RFC1891] K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status 227 Notifications", RFC 1891, January 1996. 229 [RFC1893] G. Vaudreuil, "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 230 1893, January 1996. 232 [RFC1894] K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for 233 Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, January 1996. 235 [RFC2303] C. Allocchio, "Minimal PSTN address format in Internet 236 Mail", RFC 1303, March 1998. 238 [RFC2305] K. Toyoda, H. Ohno, J. Murai, D. Wing, "A Simple Mode of 239 Facsimile Using Internet Mail", RFC 2305, March 1998. 241 [RFC2234] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 242 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. 244 [RFC2298] R. Fajman, "An Extensible Message Format for Message 245 Disposition Notifications", RFC 2298, March 1998. 247 9. Copyright 249 Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1998. All Rights Reserved. 251 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 252 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 253 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 254 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 255 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 256 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 257 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 258 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 259 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 260 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 261 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 262 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 263 English. 265 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 266 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 268 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 269 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 270 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 271 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 272 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 273 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 275 10. Authors' Addresses 277 Dan Wing 278 Cisco Systems, Inc. 279 101 Cooper Street 280 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 282 Phone: +1 408 457 5200 283 Fax: +1 408 457 5208 284 EMail: dwing@cisco.com