idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-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 -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 8 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 62 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' Security considerations: discussed in section 4 of this memo.' ) ** 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.) ** There are 99 instances of weird spacing in the document. Is it really formatted ragged-right, rather than justified? ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC-ESMTP], [RFC-DSN-STAT], [RFC-MIME], [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT], [RFC-MDN], [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP], [RFC-DSN-SMTP]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 13 has weird spacing: '... This docum...' == Line 14 has weird spacing: '...-Drafts are...' == Line 15 has weird spacing: '...working docum...' == Line 16 has weird spacing: '...ups may also ...' == Line 20 has weird spacing: '...eted by other...' == (94 more instances...) -- 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 (March 20, 2001) is 8438 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 section? 'RFC-DSN-SMTP' on line 368 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-MDN' on line 398 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-MIME' on line 402 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-DSN-STAT' on line 372 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP' on line 351 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-ESMTP' on line 380 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT' on line 355 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL' on line 347 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-ABNF' on line 359 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-MSGFMT' on line 407 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-HOSTREQ' on line 386 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-KEYWORDS' on line 390 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-RELATED' on line 411 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-EMSSC' on line 376 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-LMTP' on line 394 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC-DSN-REPT' on line 363 looks like a reference Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 18 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Draft E. Allman 3 draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-01.txt Sendmail, Inc. 4 Valid for six months March 20, 2001 5 Updates: RFC 1893 7 The Message/Tracking-Status MIME Extension 9 11 Status of This Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance 14 with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are 15 working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its 16 areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also dis- 17 tribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 20 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 21 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at: 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 32 This document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of the 33 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted 34 to the msgtrk@imc.org mailing list. An archive of the mailing list 35 may be found at 37 http://www.ietf.org/archive/msgtrk 39 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 41 1. Abstract 43 Message Tracking is expected to be used to determine the sta- 44 tus of undelivered e-mail upon request. Tracking is used in con- 45 junction with Delivery Status Notifications [RFC-DSN-SMTP] and Mes- 46 sage Disposition Notifications [RFC-MDN]; generally, a message 47 tracking request will be issued only when a DSN or MDN has not been 48 received within a reasonable timeout period. 50 This memo defines a MIME [RFC-MIME] content-type for message 51 tracking status in the same spirit as RFC 1894, ``An Extensible 52 Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications'' [RFC-DSN-STAT]. 54 It is to be issued upon a request as described in ``Message Track- 55 ing Query Protocol'' [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP]. This memo defines only the 56 format of the status information. An extension to SMTP [RFC-ESMTP] 57 to label messages for further tracking and request tracking status 58 is defined in a separate memo [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT]. 60 2. Other Documents and Conformance 62 The model used for Message Tracking is described in [DRAFT- 63 MTRK-MODEL]. 65 Message tracking is intended for use as a "last resort" mecha- 66 nism. Normally, Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) [RFC-DSN- 67 SMTP] and Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [RFC-MDN] would 68 provide the primary delivery status. Only if no response from 69 either of these mechanisms would Message Tracking be used. 71 This document is based on [RFC-DSN-STAT]. Sections 1.3 (Ter- 72 minology), 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields), 2.1.2 73 ("*-type" subfields), and 2.1.3 (Lexical tokens imported from RFC 74 822) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] are included into this document by refer- 75 ence. Other sections are further incorporated as described herein. 77 Syntax notation in this document conforms to [RFC-ABNF]. 79 The following lexical tokens, defined in [RFC-MSGFMT], are 80 used in the ABNF grammar for MTSNs: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, 81 DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical 82 token is defined in [RFC-HOSTREQ]. 84 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 85 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" 86 in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 87 [RFC-KEYWORDS]. 89 3. Format of a Message Tracking Status Notification 91 A Message Tracking Status Notification (MTSN) is intended to 92 be returned as the body of a Message Tracking request [DRAFT-MTRK- 93 MTQP]. The actual body MUST be a multipart/related [RFC-RELATED] 94 with type of "tracking-status"; each subpart MUST be type "mes- 95 sage/tracking-status" as described herein. 97 3.1. The message/tracking-status content-type 99 The message/tracking-status content-type is defined as fol- 100 lows: 102 MIME type name: message 103 MIME subtype name: tracking-status 104 Optional parameters: none 105 Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and 106 MUST be used to maintain readability 107 when viewed by non-MIME mail readers. 108 Security considerations: discussed in section 4 of this memo. 110 The body of a message/tracking-status is modeled after 111 [RFC-DSN-STAT]. That body consists of one or more "fields" for- 112 matted to according to the ABNF of RFC 822 headers "fields" (see 113 [RFC-MSGFMT]). The per-message fields appear first, followed by 114 a blank line. Following the per-message fields are one or more 115 groups of per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient 116 fields is preceded by a blank line. Formally, the syntax of the 117 message/tracking-status content is as follows: 119 tracking-status-content = 120 per-message-fields 1*( CRLF per-recipient-fields ) 122 The per-message fields are described in section 3.2. The per- 123 recipient fields are described in section 3.3. 125 3.1.1. General conventions for MTSN fields 127 Section 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields) of 128 [RFC-DSN-STAT] is included herein by reference. Notably, the 129 definition of xtext is identical to that of that document. 131 3.1.2. *-type subfields 133 Section 2.1.2 (*-type subfields) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] is 134 included herein by reference. Notably, the definitions of 135 address-type, diagnostic-type, and MTA-name type are identi- 136 cal to that of RFC 1894. 138 3.2. Per-Message MTSN Fields 140 Some fields of an MTSN apply to all of the addresses in a 141 single envelope. These fields may appear at most once in any 142 MTSN. These fields are used to correlate the MTSN with the 143 original message transaction and to provide additional informa- 144 tion which may be useful to gateways. 146 per-message-fields = 147 original-envelope-id-field CRLF 148 reporting-mta-field CRLF 149 arrival-date CRLF 150 *( extension-field CRLF ) 152 3.2.1. The Original-Envelope-Id field 154 The optional Original-Envelope-Id field is defined as in 155 section 2.2.1 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 157 3.2.2. The Reporting-MTA field 159 The Reporting-MTA field is defined as in section 2.2.2 160 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 162 3.2.3. The Arrival-Date field 164 The Arrival-Date field is defined as in section 2.2.5 of 165 [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 167 3.3. Per-Recipient MTSN fields 169 An MTSN contains information about attempts to deliver a 170 message to one or more recipients. The delivery information for 171 any particular recipient is contained in a group of contiguous 172 per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is 173 preceded by a blank line. 175 The syntax for the group of per-recipient fields is as fol- 176 lows: 178 per-recipient-fields = 179 original-recipient-field CRLF 180 final-recipient-field CRLF 181 action-field CRLF 182 status-field CRLF 183 [ remote-mta-field CRLF ] 184 [ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ] 185 [ will-retry-until-field CRLF ] 186 *( extension-field CRLF ) 188 3.3.1. Original-Recipient field 190 The optional Original-Recipient field is defined as in 191 section 2.3.1 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 193 3.3.2. Final-Recipient field 195 The required Final-Recipient field is defined as in sec- 196 tion 2.3.2 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 198 3.3.3. Action field 200 The required Action field indicates the action performed 201 by the Reporting-MTA as a result of its attempt to deliver 202 the message to this recipient address. This field MUST be 203 present for each recipient named in the MTSN. The syntax is 204 as defined in section 2.3.3 of RFC 1894. This field is 205 REQUIRED. 207 Valid actions are: 209 failed The message could not be delivered. If DSNs 210 have been enabled, a "failed" DSN should already 211 have been returned. 213 delayed The message is currently waiting in the MTA 214 queue for future delivery. Essentially, this 215 action means "the message is located, and it is 216 here." 218 delivered The message has been successfully delivered to 219 the final recipient. This includes "delivery" 220 to a mailing list exploder. It does not indi- 221 cate that the message has been read. No further 222 information is available; in particular, the 223 tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "down- 224 stream" tracking requests. 226 expanded The message has been successfully delivered to 227 the recipient address as specified by the 228 sender, and forwarded by the Reporting-MTA 229 beyond that destination to multiple additional 230 recipient addresses. However, these additional 231 addresses are not trackable, and the tracking 232 agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "downstream" 233 tracking requests. 235 relayed The message has been delivered into an environ- 236 ment that does not support message tracking. No 237 further information is available; in particular, 238 the tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt further 239 "downstream" tracking requests. 241 transferred The message has been transferred to another 242 MTRK-compliant MTA. The tracking agent SHOULD 243 attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. 245 opaque The message may or may not have been seen by 246 this system. No further information is avail- 247 able or forthcoming. 249 3.3.4. Status field 251 The Status field is defined as in RFC 1894 section 252 2.3.4. A new code is added to RFC 1893 [RFC-EMSSC], 253 "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", 255 X.1.9 Message relayed to non-compliant mailer" 257 The mailbox address specified was valid, but the mes- 258 sage has been relayed to a system that does not speak 259 this protocol; no further information can be pro- 260 vided. 261 A 2.1.9 Status field MUST be used exclusively with a 262 "relayed" Action field. This field is REQUIRED. 264 3.3.5. Remote-MTA field 266 The Remote-MTA field is defined as in section Reference 267 2.3.5 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field MUST NOT be included if 268 no delivery attempts have been made or if the Action field 269 has value "opaque". If delivery to some agent other than an 270 MTA (for example, a Local Delivery Agent) then this field MAY 271 be included, giving the name of the host on which that agent 272 was contacted. 274 3.3.6. Last-Attempt-Date field 276 The Last-Attempt-Date field is defined as in section 277 Reference 2.3.7 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED if 278 any delivery attempt has been made and the Action field does 279 not have value "opaque", in which case it will specify when 280 it last attempted to deliver this message to another MTA or 281 other Delivery Agent. This field MUST NOT be included if no 282 delivery attempts have been made. 284 3.3.7. Will-Retry-Until field 286 The Will-Retry-Until field is defined as in section Ref- 287 erence 2.3.8 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. If the message is not in the 288 local queue or the Action field has the value ``opaque'' the 289 Will-Retry-Until field MUST NOT be included; otherwise, this 290 field is REQUIRED. 292 3.4. Extension fields 294 Future extension fields may be defined as defined in sec- 295 tion 2.4 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. 297 3.5. Interaction Between MTAs and LDAs 299 A message that has been delivered to an LDA that under- 300 stands message tracking (in particular, an LDA speaking LMTP 301 [RFC-LMTP] that supports the MTRK extension) SHOULD pass the 302 tracking request to the LDA. In this case, the Action field for 303 the MTA->LDA exchange will look the same as a transfer to a com- 304 pliant MTA; that is, a "transferred" tracking status will be 305 issued. 307 4. Security Issues 309 4.1. Forgery 311 Malicious servers may attempt to subvert message tracking 312 and return false information. This could result in misdirection 313 or misinterpretation of results. 315 4.2. Confidentiality 317 Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There 318 may be cases in which a message recipient is autoforwarding mes- 319 sages but does not wish to divulge the address to which the mes- 320 sages are autoforwarded. The desire for such confidentiality 321 will probably be heightened as "wireless mailboxes", such as 322 pagers, become more widely used as autoforward addresses. 324 MTA authors are encouraged to provide a mechanism which 325 enables the end user to preserve the confidentiality of a for- 326 warding address. Depending on the degree of confidentiality 327 required, and the nature of the environment to which a message 328 were being forwarded, this might be accomplished by one or more 329 of: 331 (a) respond with a "relayed" tracking status when a message is 332 forwarded to a confidential forwarding address, and dis- 333 abling further message tracking requests. 335 (b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a "deliv- 336 ered" tracking status, re-sending the message to the confi- 337 dential forwarding address, and disabling further message 338 tracking requests. 340 The tracking algorithms MUST NOT allow tracking through 341 list expansions. When a message is delivered to a list, a 342 tracking request MUST respond with an "expanded" tracking status 343 and MUST NOT display the contents of the list. 345 5. References 347 [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] 348 T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.'' 349 draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000. 351 [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] 352 T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query Protocol.'' draft-ietf- 353 msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt. November 2000. 355 [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT] 356 E. Allman, ``SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking.'' 357 draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt. December 2000. 359 [RFC-ABNF] 360 Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syn- 361 tax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997. 363 [RFC-DSN-REPT] 364 G. Vaudreuil, ``The Multipart/Report Content Type for the 365 Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages.'' RFC 1892. 366 January 1996. 368 [RFC-DSN-SMTP] 369 K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifi- 370 cations.'' RFC 1891. January 1996. 372 [RFC-DSN-STAT] 373 K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format for 374 Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1894. January 1996. 376 [RFC-EMSSC] 377 G. Vaudreuil, ``Enhanced Mail System Status Codes.'' RFC 378 1893. January 1996. 380 [RFC-ESMTP] 381 Rose, M., Stefferud, E., Crocker, D., Klensin, J. and N. 382 Freed, ``SMTP Service Extensions.'' STD 10, RFC 1869. 384 November 1995. 386 [RFC-HOSTREQ] 387 R. Braden (ed.), ``Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Applica- 388 tion and Support.'' STD 3, RFC 1123. October 1989. 390 [RFC-KEYWORDS] 391 S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Require- 392 ment Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997. 394 [RFC-LMTP] 395 J. Myers, ``Local Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2033. Octo- 396 ber 1996. 398 [RFC-MDN] 399 R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposi- 400 tion Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998. 402 [RFC-MIME] 403 N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail 404 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bod- 405 ies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996. 407 [RFC-MSGFMT] 408 D. Crocker, ``Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text 409 Messages.'' RFC 822. August 1982. 411 [RFC-RELATED] 412 E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC 413 2387. August 1998. 415 6. Author's Address 417 Eric Allman 418 Sendmail, Inc. 419 6603 Shellmound 420 Emeryville, CA 94608 421 U.S.A. 423 E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM 424 Phone: +1 510 594 5501 425 Fax: +1 510 594 5411