idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-extensions-02.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 331 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 142: '... number which SHOULD be in the forma...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 144: '... character, it MUST be in the format...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 305 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 9232 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: 'RFC1123' is mentioned on line 103, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ENH-CODES' is mentioned on line 215, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'EIFAX' is defined on line 259, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'FAX-REQ' is defined on line 262, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1891' is defined on line 269, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2305' is defined on line 284, 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 (~~), 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 September 14, 1998 4 Expires January 1999 5 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-extensions-02.txt 7 Offramp Gateway 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 Devices which function as fax and printer offramp gateways 35 (SMTP->fax, SMTP->printing) need a standard format for indicating 36 fax- and printer-specific information such as transmission 37 duration, actual number dialed, pages transmitted, and the 38 remote system's capabilities. 40 This memo describes a format usable by fax offramps for 41 generating Message Disposition Notifications [RFC2298] and 42 Delivery Status Notifications [RFC1894] which contain such 43 information. 45 2. Introduction 47 This document describes extensions useful for fax and printer 48 gateways between SMTP and fax and printing. 50 These extensions can be used in Message Disposition Notifications 51 [RFC2298] or Delivery Status Notifications [RFC1894], as appropriate 52 for the offramp implementation. Fax offramps implemented as MUAs 53 (typically using POP or IMAP) will use the MDN format, and fax 54 offramps implemented as MTAs (SMTP servers) will use the DSN format. 56 The fields defined in this document are: 58 * duration of transmission (when faxing) or printing (when 59 printing) 60 * dialed number (when faxing) 61 * number of pages transmitted (when faxing) or printed (when 62 printing) 63 * media features of remote device 65 This draft is being discussed on the "ietf-fax" mailing list. To 66 subscribe, send a message to: 67 ietf-fax-request@imc.org 68 with the line: 69 subscribe 70 in the body of the message. Archives are available from 71 . 73 3. Extensions for use by DSN and MDN 75 A message that is gatewayed by a fax offramp will cause a telephone 76 call to be made. This section describes mechanisms for the fax 77 offramp to provide information about the telephone call: the the 78 length of the call, number of pages transmitted, and the dialed 79 telephone number. 81 The following extensions are available to both DSN [RFC1894] 82 and MDN [RFC2298] messages. 84 3.1. New Message Fields 86 For a DSN message, the following per-recipient fields are defined 87 (section 2.3 of [RFC1894]). For an MDN message, the following 88 extension fields are defined (section 3.1 of [RFC2298]). 90 extension-field = [ start-date ] 91 [ finish-date ] 92 [ transmitted-pages ] 93 [ media-features ] 94 [ xmit-attempts ] 96 start-date = "Start-Date" ":" datetime 97 finish-date = "Finish-Date" ":" datetime 98 transmitted-pages = "Total-Pages" ":" xmit-pages 99 media-features = "Remote-Media-Features" ":" 100 media-feature-tags 101 xmit-attempts = "Transmit-Attempts" ":" attempt-count 103 datetime = 104 xmit-pages = 1*10DIGIT 105 media-feature-tags = *text ;per [MEDIA-FEATURES] with 106 ;LWSP wrapping [RFC2234] 107 attempt-count = 1*10DIGIT 109 The start-date and finish-date are deliberately vague and do not 110 necessarily coorelate to the beginning of the dial sequence, 111 connection to the remote device, or beginning of data transmission. 112 Some implementations may not be able to acheive all these different 113 levels of granularity. 115 Examples: 117 Start-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1998 09:03:02 -0700 118 Finish-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1998 09:05:07 -0700 119 Transmit-Attempts: 1 120 Transmitted-Pages: 8 121 Bit-Rate: 9600 122 Remote-Media-Features: pagesize=a4 124 If a coverpage is generated and transmitted by the offramp, 125 its pagecount is included in the xmit-pages value. 127 "Call-Attempts" indicates the number of call attempts, which will 128 always be at least 1 if the faxmodem was brought off-hook. 130 3.2. Use of Existing Message Fields 132 Many existing MDN and DSN fields can be used to indicate 133 fax-related events. 135 3.2.1. Final-Recipient 137 The Final-Recipient field (which is present in both [RFC1894] 138 and [RFC2298] message formats) can be used to indicate the actual 139 number dialed. 141 The "address-type" is "phone". The "generic-address" is a telephone 142 number which SHOULD be in the format of "global-phone" as defined in 143 [RFC2303]. If the "generic-address" begins with the "+" (plus) 144 character, it MUST be in the format of "global-phone" as defined in 145 [RFC2303]. 147 Examples: 149 Final-Recipient: phone; +1-408-457-5208 150 Final-Recipient: phone; +599-78760 151 Final-Recipient: phone; 1234 153 4. Extensions for DSN 155 The following extensions are only applicable to DSN reports [RFC1894] 156 or to the SMTP server's response to the end-of-mail-data indicator if 157 the SMTP server implements [RFC2034]. 159 4.1. Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 161 While Enhanced Mail System Status Codes [RFC1893] is quite complete 162 in its description of events specific to email, it does not provide 163 error codes which map directly to all the error codes necessary for 164 other services such as gatewaying to GSTN-based fax. 166 This document describes how existing codes from [ENH-CODES] can be 167 used with a fax offramp, and documents new codes that are necessary 168 to support fax offramps. [ENH-CODES] allows new codes to be defined. 169 The following table maps fax-specific codes to [ENH-CODES] codes 170 where possible, and defines new fax-specific codes if [ENH-CODES] 171 doesn't already have a suitable mapping. 173 4.1.1. New Enhanced Mail System Status Codes for Fax 175 The new fax-specific per-recipient codes are as follows. 177 Specific to one telephone number ("Mailbox Status"): 179 "X.2.50 no carrier" 181 The number was successfully dialed, but no fax carrier 182 was ever heard by the sending fax modem. 184 "X.2.51 unable to train" 186 The number was successfully dialed, and a fax carrier was 187 heard, but the fax modem was unable to communicate with the 188 remote fax machine successfully. 190 "X.2.52 no confirmation received" 192 After transmission of a page to the remote fax machine the 193 remote fax machine did not acknowledge receiving the page. 195 "X.2.53 SIT detected" 197 A Special Information Tone (SIT) was detected. This 198 is usually because of a telephone number change. This 199 is primarily useful as a permanent error condition. 201 "X.2.54 T.30 protocol error" 203 A T.30 protocol error caused a call failure, such as 204 data underflow, missing EOLs, no response to DCS, and 205 other failures. 207 Specific to the GSTN network ("Network and Routing Status"): 209 "X.4.50 No network service" 211 No dialtone was detected. 213 4.1.2. Use of Existing Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 215 Many of the codes described in [ENH-CODES] map well to fax 216 offramp failure and success codes, and should be used to 217 promote interoperability between fax and email. The text 218 shown in parentheses is from [RFC1893]. 220 "X.1.1 No such telephone number" 221 ("Bad destination mailbox address" in [RFC1893]) 223 The telephone number does not exist or is not a dialable 224 telephone number. This code is only useful for permanent 225 failures (5.X.X). 227 "X.1.3 Unable to parse telephone number" 228 ("Bad destination mailbox address syntax" in [RFC1893]) 230 The destination address was syntactically invalid. This can 231 apply to any field in the address. This code is only useful 232 for permanent failures (5.X.X). 234 "X.4.1 No answer" 235 ("No answer from host" in [RFC1893]) 237 The outbound connection attempt was not answered. This is 238 useful for both permanent (5.X.X) and persistent transient 239 errors (4.X.X). 241 "X.3.2 Persistently Busy" 242 ("System not accepting network messages" in [RFC1893]) 244 The dialed telephone number was busy. This is useful for both 245 permanent (5.X.X) and persistent transient errors (4.X.X). 247 5. Security Considerations 249 The Final-Recipient could disclose long-distance access codes that 250 would be otherwise unknown to the sender. 252 6. Acknowledgments 254 The author thanks the members of the Internet Fax working group for 255 assistance with this document. 257 7. References 259 [EIFAX] L. Masinter, D. Wing, "Extended Facsimile Using Internet 260 Mail", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-eifax-XX.txt 262 [FAX-REQ] L. Masinter, "Requirements for Internet FAX", Internet 263 Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-fax-requirements-XX.txt. 265 [MEDIA-FEATURES] L. Masinter, K. Holtman, D. Wing, "Media Features 266 for Display, Print, and Fax", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, 267 draft-masinter-media-features-XX.txt. 269 [RFC1891] K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status 270 Notifications", RFC 1891, January 1996. 272 [RFC1893] G. Vaudreuil, "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 273 1893, January 1996. 275 [RFC1894] K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for 276 Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, January 1996. 278 [RFC2034] N. Freed, "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced 279 Error Codes", RFC 2034, October 1996. 281 [RFC2303] C. Allocchio, "Minimal PSTN address format in Internet 282 Mail", RFC 1303, March 1998. 284 [RFC2305] K. Toyoda, H. Ohno, J. Murai, D. Wing, "A Simple Mode of 285 Facsimile Using Internet Mail", RFC 2305, March 1998. 287 [RFC2234] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 288 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. 290 [RFC2298] R. Fajman, "An Extensible Message Format for Message 291 Disposition Notifications", RFC 2298, March 1998. 293 9. Copyright 295 Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1998. All Rights Reserved. 297 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 298 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 299 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 300 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 301 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 302 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 303 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 304 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 305 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 306 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 307 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 308 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 309 English. 311 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 312 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 314 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 315 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 316 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 317 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 318 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 319 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 321 10. Author's Address 323 Dan Wing 324 Cisco Systems, Inc. 325 101 Cooper Street 326 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 328 Phone: +1 408 457 5200 329 Fax: +1 408 457 5208 330 EMail: dwing@cisco.com