idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-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 320 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. ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. ** 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 133: '... 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 293 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 9226 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 204, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'EIFAX' is defined on line 247, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'FAX-REQ' is defined on line 250, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1891' is defined on line 257, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2305' is defined on line 272, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2234' is defined on line 275, 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: 18 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 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 7, 1998 4 Expires January 1999 5 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-extensions-01.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-begin-time ] 85 [ call-end-time ] 86 [ transmitted-pages ] 87 [ media-features ] 88 [ bit-rate-field ] 89 [ call-attempts ] 91 call-begin-time = "Call-Begin" ":" begin-time 92 call-end-time = "Call-End" ":" end-time 93 transmitted-pages = "Transmitted-Pages" ":" xmit-pages 94 media-features = "Media-Features" ":" media-feature-tags 95 bit-rate-field = "Bit-Rate" ":" bit-rate 96 call-attempts = "Call-Attempts" ":" attempt-count 98 begin-time = 99 end-time = 100 xmit-pages = 1*DIGIT 101 media-feature-tags = *text 102 bit-rate = "110" / "300" / "1200" / "2400" / "4800" / "9600" / 103 "14400" / "28800" 104 attempt-count = 1*DIGIT 106 Examples: 108 Call-Begin: Fri, 8 Aug 1998 09:03:02 -0700 109 Call-End: Fri, 8 Aug 1998 09:05:07 -0700 110 Call-Attemps: 1 111 Transmitted-Pages: 8 112 Bit-Rate: 9600 113 Media-Features: pagesize=a4 115 If a coverpage is generated and transmitted by the offramp, 116 its pagecount is included in the xmit-pages value. 118 "Call-Attempts" indicates the number of call attempts, which will 119 always be at least 1 if the faxmodem was brought off-hook. 121 3.2. Use of Existing Message Fields 123 Many existing MDN and DSN fields can be used to indicate 124 fax-related events. 126 3.2.1. Final-Recipient 128 The Final-Recipient field (which is present in both [RFC1894] 129 and [RFC2298] message formats) can be used to indicate the actual 130 number dialed. 132 The "address-type" is "phone". The "generic-address" is a telephone 133 number which SHOULD be in the format of "global-phone" (as defined in 134 [RFC2303]). 136 Examples: 138 Final-Recipient: phone; +1-408-457-5208 139 Final-Recipient: phone; +599-78760 140 Final-Recipient: phone; 1234 142 4. Extensions for DSN 144 The following extensions are only applicable to DSN reports [RFC1894] 145 or to the SMTP server's response to the end-of-mail-data indicator if 146 the SMTP server implements [RFC2034]. 148 4.1. Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 150 While Enhanced Mail System Status Codes [RFC1893] is quite complete 151 in its description of events specific to email, it does not provide 152 error codes which map directly to all the error codes necessary for 153 other services such as gatewaying to GSTN-based fax. 155 This document describes how existing codes from [ENH-CODES] can be 156 used with a fax offramp, and documents new codes that are necessary 157 to support fax offramps. [ENH-CODES] allows new codes to be defined. 158 The following table maps fax-specific codes to [ENH-CODES] codes 159 where possible, and defines new fax-specific codes if [ENH-CODES] 160 doesn't already have a suitable mapping. 162 4.1.1. New Enhanced Mail System Status Codes for Fax 164 The new fax-specific per-recipient codes are as follows. 166 Specific to one telephone number ("Mailbox Status"): 168 "X.2.50 no carrier" 170 The number was successfully dialed, but no fax carrier 171 was ever heard by the sending fax modem. 173 "X.2.51 unable to train" 175 The number was successfully dialed, and a fax carrier was 176 heard, but the fax modem was unable to communicate with the 177 remote fax machine successfully. 179 "X.2.52 no confirmation received" 181 After transmission of a page to the remote fax machine the 182 remote fax machine did not acknowledge receiving the page. 184 "X.2.53 SIT detected" 186 A Special Information Tone (SIT) was detected. This 187 is usually because of a telephone number change. This 188 is primarily useful as a permanent error condition. 190 "X.2.54 T.30 protocol error" 192 A T.30 protocol error caused a call failure, such as 193 data underflow, missing EOLs, no response to DCS, and 194 other failures. 196 Specific to the GSTN network ("Network and Routing Status"): 198 "X.4.50 No network service" 200 No dialtone was detected. 202 4.1.2. Use of Existing Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 204 Many of the codes described in [ENH-CODES] map well to fax 205 offramp failure and success codes, and should be used to 206 promote interoperability between fax and email. The text 207 shown in parentheses is from [RFC1893]. 209 "X.1.1 No such telephone number" 210 ("Bad destination mailbox address" in [RFC1893]) 212 The telephone number does not exist or is not a dialable 213 telephone number. This code is only useful for permanent 214 failures (5.X.X). 216 "X.1.3 Unable to parse telephone number" 217 ("Bad destination mailbox address syntax" in [RFC1893]) 219 The destination address was syntactically invalid. This can 220 apply to any field in the address. This code is only useful 221 for permanent failures (5.X.X). 223 "X.4.1 No answer" 224 ("No answer from host" in [RFC1893]) 226 The outbound connection attempt was not answered. This is 227 useful for both permanent (5.X.X) and persistent transient 228 error (4.X.X). 230 "X.3.2 Persistently Busy" 231 ("System not accepting network messages" in [RFC1893]) 233 The dialed telephone number was busy. This is useful for both 234 permanent (5.X.X) and presistent transient errors (4.X.X). 236 5. Security Considerations 238 The Final-Recipient could disclose long-distance access codes that 239 would be otherwise unknown to the sender. 241 6. Acknowledgments 243 XXX 245 7. References 247 [EIFAX] L. Masinter, D. Wing, "Extended Facsimile Using Internet 248 Mail", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-eifax-XX.txt 250 [FAX-REQ] L. Masinter, "Requirements for Internet FAX", Internet 251 Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-requirements-XX.txt. 253 [MEDIA-FEATURES] L. Masinter, K. Holtman, D. Wing, "Media Features 254 for Display, Print, and Fax", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, 255 draft-masinter-media-features-XX.txt. 257 [RFC1891] K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status 258 Notifications", RFC 1891, January 1996. 260 [RFC1893] G. Vaudreuil, "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 261 1893, January 1996. 263 [RFC1894] K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for 264 Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, January 1996. 266 [RFC2034] N. Freed, "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced 267 Error Codes", RFC 2034, October 1996. 269 [RFC2303] C. Allocchio, "Minimal PSTN address format in Internet 270 Mail", RFC 1303, March 1998. 272 [RFC2305] K. Toyoda, H. Ohno, J. Murai, D. Wing, "A Simple Mode of 273 Facsimile Using Internet Mail", RFC 2305, March 1998. 275 [RFC2234] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 276 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. 278 [RFC2298] R. Fajman, "An Extensible Message Format for Message 279 Disposition Notifications", RFC 2298, March 1998. 281 9. Copyright 283 Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1998. All Rights Reserved. 285 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 286 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 287 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 288 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 289 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 290 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 291 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 292 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 293 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 294 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 295 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 296 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 297 English. 299 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 300 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 302 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 303 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 304 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 305 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 306 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 307 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 309 10. Author's Address 311 Dan Wing 312 Cisco Systems, Inc. 313 101 Cooper Street 314 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 316 Phone: +1 408 457 5200 317 Fax: +1 408 457 5208 318 EMail: dwing@cisco.com