idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-extensions-03.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 ([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 76: '... which MUST utilize the language described in [SYNTAX]. For...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 77: '... schema document MUST be a standards-t...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 164 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 (February 1999) is 9202 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: 'RFC1893' is mentioned on line 104, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 1893 (Obsoleted by RFC 3463) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1894 (Obsoleted by RFC 3464) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2234 (Obsoleted by RFC 4234) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2298 (Obsoleted by RFC 3798) -- No information found for draft-ietf-conneg-feature-syntax-XX - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'SYNTAX' Summary: 14 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 4 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 October 12, 1998 4 Expires February 1999 5 draft-ietf-fax-reporting-extensions-03.txt 7 Indicating Supported Media Features Using 8 Extensions to DSN and MDN 10 Status of this memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 13 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 14 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 15 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 18 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 19 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 20 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 22 To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check 23 the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts 24 Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net 25 (Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au 26 (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu 27 (US West Coast). 29 Copyright Notice 31 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved. 33 1. Abstract 35 A device, unlike a workstation, is not generally extensible by 36 installing a new reader, plugin, or other software. There is a need 37 in Internet mail for a recipient to indicate the media features it 38 supports so that messages can be generated by senders without 39 exceeding the recipient's abilities. 41 This memo describes a format for generating Message Disposition 42 Notifications [RFC2298] and Delivery Status Notifications [RFC1894] 43 which contain such information. This information can be used by 44 senders to avoid exceeding the recipient's capabilities when sending 45 subsequent messages. 47 2. Introduction 48 The extensions described in this document can be used in Message 49 Disposition Notifications [RFC2298] or Delivery Status Notifications 50 [RFC1894], as appropriate for the implementation. 52 Note that both DSNs and MDNs have drawbacks: DSNs are not available 53 between all senders and receivers, and MDNs require the receiver 54 disclose message disposition information (or, if using the "denied" 55 disposition-type, the time the dispostion notification was 56 generated). 58 3. Extensions for use by DSN and MDN 60 The following extension is available to both DSN [RFC1894] and MDN 61 [RFC2298] messages. 63 For a DSN message, the following per-recipient fields are defined 64 (section 2.3 of [RFC1894]). For an MDN message, the following 65 extension fields are defined (section 3.1 of [RFC2298]). Using 66 the language of [RFC2234]: 68 extension-field = media-features CRLF 70 media-features = "Accept-Features" ":" 71 media-feature-tags 72 media-feature-tags = <*text as defined by other documents, 73 with LWSP wrapping) 75 The are defined in separate schema documents 76 which MUST utilize the language described in [SYNTAX]. For 77 standardization, the schema document MUST be a standards-track RFC. 79 3.1. Examples 81 The following examples assume there is a schema document 82 which defines the tags shown. 84 3.1.1. Paper-size and Color 86 Assuming there is a schema document which describes the 87 tags paper-size and color, the following example is valid: 89 Accept-Features: (& (paper-size=A4) (color<=256) ) 91 3.1.2. UA-Media, Paper-size, and Color 93 Assuming there is a schema document which describes the 94 tags paper-size, color, and grey: 96 Accept-Features: (& (| (paper-size=(A4)) (paper-size=letter) ) 97 (| (& (grey=2) (dpi-x=200) (dpi-y=[100,200]) ) 98 (& (color<=256) (dpi-x=200) (dpi-y=200) ) ) 100 4. MTA Implmentation Recommendation 102 If the recipient's MTA determines that a message cannot be processed, 103 the recipient's MTA is strongly encouraged to reject the message with 104 a status code of 5.6.1 [RFC1893]. This status code may be returned 105 in response to the end-of-mail-data indicator if the MTA supports 106 reporting of enhanced error codes [RFC2034], or after message 107 reception by generating a delivery failure DSN ("bounce"). 109 5. Security Considerations 111 Inaccurate media feature information could cause a denial of service, 112 causing subsequent messages to be sent which the recipient is 113 unable to process. 115 The media feature information could be inaccurate due to a malicious 116 attack (spoofed DSN or MDN) or misconfiguration. 118 6. Acknowledgments 120 The author thanks the members of the Internet Fax working group for 121 assistance with this document, and especially Larry Masinter, 122 Graham Klyne, and Ned Freed. 124 7. References 126 [RFC1894] K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for 127 Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, January 1996. 129 [RFC2034] N. Freed, "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced 130 Error Codes", RFC 2034, October 1996. 132 [RFC2234] D. Crocker, P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 133 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. 135 [RFC2298] R. Fajman, "An Extensible Message Format for Message 136 Disposition Notifications", RFC 2298, March 1998. 138 [SYNTAX] G. Klyne, "A syntax for describing media feature sets", 139 Internet Draft, Work in Progress, 140 draft-ietf-conneg-feature-syntax-XX.txt. 142 8. Author's Address 143 Dan Wing 144 Cisco Systems, Inc. 145 101 Cooper Street 146 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 148 Phone: +1 831 457 5200 149 Fax: +1 831 457 5208 150 EMail: dwing@cisco.com 152 9. Copyright 154 Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1998. All Rights Reserved. 156 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 157 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 158 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 159 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 160 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 161 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 162 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 163 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 164 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 165 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 166 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 167 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 168 English. 170 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 171 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 173 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 174 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 175 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 176 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 177 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 178 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.