idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-notary-status-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-24) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing document type: Expected "INTERNET-DRAFT" in the upper left hand corner of the first page ** 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 10 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 61 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Abstract section. ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 2. Overview' ) ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' Security Consideration 5.' ) ** 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 116 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 30 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (December 29, 1994) is 10709 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-821' on line 445 looks like a reference Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Greg Vaudreuil 2 Internet Draft Octel Network Services 3 Expires: 6/1/95 December 29, 1994 5 Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 7 9 1. 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 13 areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also 14 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 17 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 18 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- 19 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work 20 in progress." 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check 23 the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet- Drafts 24 Shadow Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), 25 nic.nordu.net (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or 26 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim).Introduction 28 2. Overview 30 SMTP [RFC-821] error codes have been proposed as a base for use 31 in delivery status notifications to indicate the full range of 32 possible mail delivery errors. Because SMTP does not indicate 33 the full range of transport or system level errors, the set of 34 codes was extended. This extension has several limitations for 35 which this proposal was created to avoid. 37 SMTP provides about 12 useful codes for delivery reports. The 38 majority of the codes are protocol specific response codes such 39 as the 354 response to the data command. Each of the 12 useful 40 codes are each overloaded to indicate several error conditions 41 each. SMTP suffers some scars from history, most notably the 42 unfortunate damage to the reply code extension mechanism by 43 uncontrolled use. This proposal facilitates future extensibility 44 by requiring the client to interpret unknown error codes 45 according to the theory of codes while requiring servers to 46 register new response codes. 48 The theory of reply codes partitioned in the number space such a 49 manner that the remaining available codes will not provide the 50 space needed. The most critical example is the existence of only 51 5 remaining codes for mail system errors. The mail system 52 classification includes both host and mailbox error conditions. 54 needed to indicate MIME and media conversion errors and security 55 system errors. 57 A revision to the SMTP theory of reply codes to better distribute 58 the error conditions in the number space will necessarily be 59 incompatible with SMTP. Further, consumption of the remaining 60 reply-code number space for delivery notification reporting will 61 reduce the available codes for new ESMTP extensions. 63 The following proposal starts from the SMTP theory of reply 64 codes. It adopts the success, permanent error, and transient 65 error semantics of the first value, with a further description 66 and classification in the second. This proposal re-distributes 67 the classifications to better distribute the error conditions, 68 such as separating mailbox from host errors. The detail value 69 has been separated by a period and replaced by a two digit 70 integer. This separation into an integer provides a virtually 71 unbounded space for future growth as well as visually indicates 72 that the codes is not SMTP. 74 Status Codes 3. 76 This document defines a new set of status codes to report 77 delivery status in the DSN. The syntax of the new status codes is 78 defined as: 80 Status-Code = 1*Digit "." 1*Digit "." 2*Digit 82 The status codes are explicit enumeration's of each of the three 83 fields. The codes space defined is intended to be extensible 84 only by standards track documents. Mail system specific status 85 codes should be mapped as closely to the standard status codes. 86 Servers should send only defined, registered status codes. System 87 specific system errors may be carried in the DSN via protocol 88 specific extension fields. Clients should preserve the 89 extensibility of the code space by reporting the general error 90 described in the second protocol digit when the specific detail 91 is unrecognized. 93 The first digit provides a broad classification of the status. 94 The enumerated values of this first digit are defined as: 96 Success (1) 98 Success specifies that the DSN is reporting a positive delivery 99 action. Detail digits may provide notification of 100 transformations required for delivery. 102 Permanent Failure (2) 104 A permanent failure is one which is not likely to be resolved by 105 resending the message in the current form. Some change to the 106 message or the destination must be made for successful delivery. 108 Persistent Transient Failure (3) 110 A persistent transient failure is one in which the message as 111 sent is valid, but some temporary event prevents the successful 112 sending of the message. Sending in the future may be successful. 114 A client must recognize and report based on the first digit even 115 where subsequent digits are unrecognized. 117 The second digit classifies the subject of the status. This 118 digit applies to each of the three classifications. The second 119 digit, if recognized, must be reported even if the additional 120 detail provided by the third digit is not recognized. The 121 enumerated values for the second digit are: 123 Other or undefined status (0) 124 Addressing status (1) 125 Mailbox status (2) 126 System status (3) 127 Network and Routing Status (4) 128 Protocol Status (5) 129 Message Content or Media Status (6) 130 Security Status (7) 132 The detail value provides greater detail about the status and is 133 defined relative to the subject of the status as indicated by the 134 second digit. 136 The following section defines and describes the detail status 137 code digits. 139 Other or Undefined Status (0) 1 3. 141 There is no additional detail available for other or undefined 142 status codes. Only the value "0" is defined. 144 3. Address Status (1) 2 146 The address status reports problems with the address specified. 147 It may include address syntax or validity. 149 2 3. .1 Other Address Status (1.0) 151 Something about the address specified in the message caused this 152 DSN. 154 .2 Bad mailbox address (1.1) 2 3. 156 The mailbox specified in the address does not exist. For domain 157 names, this means the address portion to the left of the "@" sign 158 is invalid. This code is only useful for permanent failures. 160 Bad system address (1.2) 2.3 3. 162 The destination system specified in the address does not exist or 163 is incapable of accepting mail. For domain names, this means the 164 address portion to the right of the "@" is invalid for mail. 165 This codes is only useful for permanent failures. 167 Bad mailbox address syntax (1.3) 2.4 3. 169 The address was syntactically invalid. This can apply to any 170 field in the address. This code is only useful for permanent 171 failures. 173 Mailbox address ambiguous (1.4) .5 3.2 175 The mailbox address as specified matches one or more recipients 176 on the destination system. This may result if a heuristic 177 address mapping algorithm is used to map the specified address to 178 a local mailbox name. This code is only useful for permanent 179 failures. 181 Mailbox Status (2) 3 3. 183 Mailbox status indicates that something having to do with the 184 mailbox has cause this DSN. Mailbox issues are assumed to be 185 under the general control of the individual recipient. 187 Other or undefined mailbox status (2.0) 3.1 3. 189 The mailbox exists, but something about the destination mailbox 190 has cause the sending of this DSN. 192 3 Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages (2.1) .2 3. 194 The mailbox exists, but is not accepting messages. This may be a 195 permanent error if the mailbox will never be re-enabled or a 196 transient error if the mailbox is only temporarily disabled. 198 Mailbox full (2.2) 3.3 3. 200 The mailbox is full either because the user has exceeded an 201 administrative quota or the dedicated physical resources have 202 been exceeded. The general semantics implies that the recipient 203 can delete messages to make more space available. . This code 204 should be used as a persistent transient failure. 206 3 Message length exceeds administrative limit (2.3) 3. .4 208 A per-mailbox administrative message length limit has been 209 exceeded. This status code should be used when the per-mailbox 210 message length limit is less than the general system limit. This 211 code should be used as a permanent failure. 213 Mailing list expansion problem (2.4) 3.5 3. 215 The mailbox is a mailing list address, and the mailing list was 216 unable to be expanded. This code may represent a permanent 217 failure or a persistent transient failure. 219 System Status (3) 3.4 221 System status indicates that something having to do with the 222 destination system has cause this DSN. System issues are assumed 223 to be under the general control of the system administrator. 225 .1 Other or undefined system status (3.0) 4 3. 227 The destination system exists and normally accepts mail, but is 228 something about the system has caused the generation of this DSN. 230 System full (3.1) .2 3.4 232 System storage has been exceeded. The general semantics imply 233 that the individual recipient may not be able to delete material 234 to make room for additional messages. This is useful only as a 235 persistent transient error. 237 System not accepting network messages (3.2) .3 3.4 239 The host on which the mailbox is resident is not accepting 240 messages. Examples of such conditions include an immanent 241 shutdown or system maintenance. This is useful for both 242 permanent and permanent transient errors. 244 System not capable of selected features (3.3) .4 4 3. 246 Selected message features specified for the message are not 247 supported by the destination system. This is useful only as a 248 permanent error. 250 Message too big for system (3.4) .5 4 3. 252 The message is larger than the system can handle, either for 253 physical or administrative reasons. This is useful only as a 254 permanent error. 256 Network and Routing Status (4) 5 3. 258 The networking or routing codes report status about the delivery 259 system itself, both the network and intermediate processing. 261 .1 5 3. Other or undefined network or routing status (4.0) 263 Something went wrong with the networking, but it is not clear 264 what the problem is, or the problem cannot be well expressed with 265 any of the other provided detail codes. 267 No answer from host (4.1) 5.2 3. 269 The outbound connection attempt was not answered, either because 270 the remote system was busy, or otherwise unable to take a call. 271 This is useful only as a persistent transient error. 273 .3 Bad connection (4.2) 3.5 275 The outbound connection was completed, but was otherwise unable 276 to complete the message transaction, either because of time-out, 277 excessive packet loss, or inadequate quality. This is useful only 278 as a persistent transient error. 280 Routing server failure (4.3) .4 3.5 282 The network system was unable to determine the next hop for the 283 message, because a nameserver was unavailable to resolve the 284 address or provide a route. This is useful only as a persistent 285 transient error. 287 Unable to route (4.4) .5 3.5 289 The network was unable to determine the next hop for the message 290 because the necessary routing information was unavailable from 291 the routing server. This is useful for both permanent and 292 persistent transient errors. 294 Network congestion (4.5) .6 3.5 296 The network or system was unable to deliver the message because 297 the network was congested, or the queuing was overfilled. This is 298 useful only as a persistent transient error. 300 3. Routing loop detected (4.6) 5.7 302 A routing loop caused the message to be forwarded too many times, 303 either because of incorrect routing tables or a user forwarding 304 loop. This is useful only as a persistent transient error. 306 3. .8 5 Delivery time expired (4.7) 308 The message was considered too old by the rejecting system, 309 either because it remained on that host too long or because the 310 TTL value specified by the sender of the message was exceeded. 311 This is useful only as a persistent transient error. 313 6 3. Protocol Status (5) 315 6 3. Other or undefined protocol status (0) .1 317 Something was wrong with the protocol necessary to deliver the 318 message to the next hop and the problem cannot be well expressed 319 with any of the other provided detail codes. 321 Invalid command (5.1) 6.2 3. 323 A command was issued which was either out of sequence or 324 otherwise unsupported. This is useful only as a permanent error. 326 3. Syntax error (5.2) 6.3 328 A command was issued which could not be interpreted, either 329 because the syntax was wrong or the command was not supported. 330 This is useful only as a permanent error. 332 .4 Too many recipients (5.3) 6 3. 334 More recipients were specified for the message than could have 335 been delivered by the protocol. This error should normally 336 result in the segmentation of the message into two, the remainder 337 of the recipients to be delivered on a subsequent delivery 338 attempt. It is included in this list in the event that such 339 segmentation is not possible. This is useful only as a permanent 340 error. 342 Invalid command arguments (5.4) .5 6 3. 344 A valid command was issued with invalid arguments, either because 345 the arguments were out of range or represented unrecognized 346 features. This is useful only as a permanent error. 348 Wrong protocol version (5.5) .6 3.6 350 A protocol version mis-match existed which could not be 351 automatically resolved by downgrading one of the communicating 352 parties. This should never happen in ESMTP. This is useful only 353 as a permanent error. 355 Message Content or Media Status (6) 3.7 357 7 Other or undefined media error (6.0) .1 3. 359 Something about the content of a message caused it to be 360 considered undeliverable and the problem cannot be well expressed 361 with any of the other provided detail codes. 363 Media not supported (6.1) 7.2 3. 365 The media of the message is not supported by the either the 366 delivery protocol or a host in the forwarding path. This is 367 useful only as a permanent error. 369 7 Conversion required and prohibited (6.2) .3 3. 371 The content of the message must be converted before it can be 372 delivered and such conversion is not permitted. Such 373 prohibitions may be the expression of the sender in the message 374 itself or the policy of the sending host. This is useful only as 375 a permanent error. 377 Conversion required but not supported (6.3) 7.4 3. 379 The message content must be converted to be forwarded but such 380 conversion is not possible by a host in the forwarding path. 381 This condition may result when a relay supports ESMTP transport 382 but not MIME downgrade. This is useful only as a permanent error. 384 Conversion with loss performed (4) 7.5 3. 386 This is a warning sent to the sender when message delivery was 387 successfully but when the delivery required a conversion in which 388 some data was lost. This is useful for successful notification. 390 Security Status (7) 8 3. 392 .1 8 3. Other or undefined security status (7.0) 394 Something related to security caused the message to be returned, 395 and the problem cannot be well expressed with any of the other 396 provided detail codes. 398 Delivery not authorized, message refused (7.1) .2 3.8 400 The sender is not authorized to send to the destination. This 401 can be the result of per-host or per-recipient filtering. This 402 memo does not discuss the merits of any such filtering, but 403 provides a mechanism to report such. This is useful only as a 404 permanent error. 406 8 Mailing list expansion prohibited (7.2) .3 3. 408 The sender is not authorized to send a message to the intended 409 mailing list. This is useful only as a permanent error. 411 .4 8 3. Security conversion required but not possible (7.3) 413 A conversion from one secure messaging protocol to another was 414 required for delivery and such conversion was not possible. This 415 is useful only as a permanent error. 417 8 Security features not supported (7.4) .5 3. 419 A message contained security features such as secure 420 authentication which could not be supported on the delivery 421 protocol. This is useful only as a permanent error. 423 3. .6 Cryptographic failure (7.5) 8 425 A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or decrypt a 426 message in transport was unable to do so because necessary 427 information such as key was not available or such information was 428 invalid. This is useful only as a permanent error. 430 Cryptographic algorithm not supported (7.6) 8.7 3. 432 A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or decrypt a 433 message was unable to do so because the necessary algorithm was 434 not supported. This is useful only as a permanent error. 436 .8 Message integrity failure (7.7) 3.8 438 A transport system otherwise authorized to validate a message was 439 unable to do so because the message was corrupted or altered. 440 This may be useful as a permanent, transient persistent, or 441 successful delivery code. 443 References 4. 445 [RFC-821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, 446 RFC 821, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982. 448 Security Consideration 5. 450 This document describes a status code system with increased 451 precision. Use of these status codes may disclose information 452 about how an internal mail system is implemented beyond that 453 currently available. 455 Author's Address 6. 457 Gregory M. Vaudreuil 458 Octel Network Services 459 17060 Dallas Parkway 460 Suite 214 461 Dallas, TX 75248-1905 462 214-733-2722 463 Greg.Vaudreuil@ons.octel.com 464 Appendix - Collected Status Codes 7. 466 X.1.0 Other Address Status 467 X.1.1 Bad mailbox address 468 X.1.2 Bad system address 469 X.1.3 Bad mailbox address syntax 470 X.1.4 Mailbox address ambiguous 472 X.2.0 Other or undefined mailbox status 473 X.2.1 Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages 474 X.2.2 Mailbox full 475 X.2.3 Message length exceeds administrative limit. 476 X.2.4 Mailing list expansion problem 478 X.3.0 Other or undefined system status 479 X.3.1 System full 480 X.3.2 System not accepting network messages 481 X.3.3 System not capable of selected features 482 X.3.4 Message too big for system 484 X.4.0 Other or undefined network or routing status 485 X.4.1 No answer from host 486 X.4.2 Bad connection 487 X.4.3 Routing server failure 488 X.4.4. Unable to route 489 X.4.5 Network congestion 490 X.4.6 Routing loop detected 491 X.4.7 Delivery time expired 493 X.5.0 Other or undefined protocol status 494 X.5.1 Invalid command 495 X.5.2 Syntax error 496 X.5.3 Too many recipients 497 X.5.4 Invalid command arguments 498 X.5.5 Wrong protocol version 500 X.6.0 Other or undefined media error 501 X.6.1 Media not supported 502 X.6.2 Conversion required and prohibited 503 X.6.3 Conversion required but not supported 504 X.6.4 Conversion with loss performed 506 X.7.0 Other or undefined security status 507 X.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message refused 508 X.7.2 Mailing list expansion prohibited 509 X.7.3 Security conversion required but not possible 510 X.7.4 Security features not supported 511 X.7.5 Cryptographic failure 512 X.7.6 Cryptographic algorithm not supported 513 X.7.7 Message integrity failure 514 1 Appendix - Existing SMTP Reply-Codes From RFC 821 7. 516 211 System status, or system help reply 517 214 Help message 518 [Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a 519 particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only 520 to the human user] 521 220 Service ready 522 221 Service closing transmission channel 523 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 524 251 User not local; will forward to 526 354 Start mail input; end with . 528 421 Service not available, 529 closing transmission channel 530 [This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it 531 must shut down] 532 450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable 533 [E.g., mailbox busy] 534 451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing 535 452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage 537 500 Syntax error, command unrecognized 538 [This may include errors such as command line too long] 539 501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments 540 502 Command not implemented 541 503 Bad sequence of commands 542 504 Command parameter not implemented 543 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable 544 [E.g., mailbox not found, no access] 545 551 User not local; please try 546 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation 547 553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed 548 [E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect] 549 554 Transaction failed