idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-notary-status-01.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 (2024-04-25) 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 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 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** 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 10) being 59 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 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 171 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 8 characters in excess of 72. == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. 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 (January 24, 1995) is 10684 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 54 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 57 == Unused Reference: 'RFC-821' is defined on line 469, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 821 (Obsoleted by RFC 2821) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 4 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: 6/16/95 January 24, 1995 5 Enhanced Mail System Status Codes 7 9 Changes from Last Version 11 1) Numerious editiorial corrections and clarifications including a revised 12 overview section. 14 2) Several new error codes were added. 16 a) An additional status code was added for mailbox valid. It was 17 suggested that other mailbox status was too ambigious for use in a 18 positive delivery report. 20 b) An additional status code was added to indicate that the address 21 has changed and no forwarding address is available. 23 c) An additional status code was added to indicate that a conversion 24 required for delivery failed. 26 3) The BNF was updated more clearly express the allowable values for each 27 of the status code fields. The first digit was redefined to have the same 28 values as the SMTP error codes, values 2-Success, 4-Persistant temporary 29 failure, and 5-Permanant failure. This change was discussed and agreed to 30 in San Jose but was overlooked in the first ID posting. 32 1. Status of this Memo 34 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents 35 of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working 36 groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as 37 Internet-Drafts. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and 40 may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It 41 is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite 42 them other than as "work in progress." 44 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id- 45 abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet- Drafts Shadow Directories 46 on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US 47 West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim).Introduction 48 2. Overview 50 There currently is not a standard mechanism for the reporting of mail 51 system errors except for the limited set offered by SMTP and the system 52 specific text descriptions sent in mail messages. There is a pressing need 53 for a rich machine readable status code for use in delivery status 54 notifications [2]. This document proposes a new set of status codes for 55 this purpose. 57 SMTP [1] error codes have historically been used for reporting mail system 58 errors. Because of limitations in the SMTP code design, these are not 59 suitable for use in delivery status notifications. SMTP provides about 12 60 useful codes for delivery reports. The majority of the codes are protocol 61 specific response codes such as the 354 response to the data command. Each 62 of the 12 useful codes are each overloaded to indicate several error 63 conditions each. SMTP suffers some scars from history, most notably the 64 unfortunate damage to the reply code extension mechanism by uncontrolled 65 use. This proposal facilitates future extensibility by requiring the 66 client to interpret unknown error codes according to the theory of codes 67 while requiring servers to register new response codes. 69 The SMTP theory of reply codes partitioned in the number space such a 70 manner that the remaining available codes will not provide the space 71 needed. The most critical example is the existence of only 5 remaining 72 codes for mail system errors. The mail system classification includes both 73 host and mailbox error conditions. The remaining third digit space will be 74 completely consumed as needed to indicate MIME and media conversion errors 75 and security system errors. 77 A revision to the SMTP theory of reply codes to better distribute the error 78 conditions in the number space will necessarily be incompatible with SMTP. 79 Further, consumption of the remaining reply-code number space for delivery 80 notification reporting will reduce the available codes for new ESMTP 81 extensions. 83 The following proposal starts from the SMTP theory of reply codes. It 84 adopts the success, permanent error, and transient error semantics of the 85 first value, with a further description and classification in the second. 86 This proposal re-distributes the classifications to better distribute the 87 error conditions, such as separating mailbox from host errors. The detail 88 value has been separated by a period and replaced by a two digit integer. 89 This separation into an integer provides a virtually unbounded space for 90 future growth as well as visually indicates that the codes is not SMTP. 92 3. Status Codes 94 This document defines a new set of status codes to report delivery status 95 in the DSN. These status codes are intended to be used for media and 96 language independent status reporting and not for system specific 97 diagnostics. 99 The syntax of the new status codes is defined as: 101 status-code = class "." subject "." detail 102 class = "2"/"4"/"5" 103 subject = 2*digit 104 detail = 2*digit 106 The status codes are explicit enumeration's of each of the three fields. 107 The codes space defined is intended to be extensible only by standards 108 track documents. Mail system specific status codes should be mapped as 109 closely to the standard status codes. Servers should send only defined, 110 registered status codes. System specific errors and diagnostics may be 111 carried in the DSN via protocol specific extension fields. Clients should 112 preserve the extensibility of the code space by reporting the general error 113 described in the second protocol digit when the specific detail is 114 unrecognized. 116 The first digit provides a broad classification of the status. The 117 enumerated values of this first digit are defined as: 119 Success (2) 121 Success specifies that the DSN is reporting a positive delivery action. 122 Detail digits may provide notification of transformations required for 123 delivery. 125 Persistent Transient Failure (4) 127 A persistent transient failure is one in which the message as sent is 128 valid, but some temporary event prevents the successful sending of the 129 message. Sending in the future may be successful. 131 Permanent Failure (5) 133 A permanent failure is one which is not likely to be resolved by resending 134 the message in the current form. Some change to the message or the 135 destination must be made for successful delivery. 137 A client must recognize and report based on the first digit even where 138 subsequent digits are unrecognized. 140 The second subject digit classifies the status. This digit applies to each 141 of the three classifications. The second digit, if recognized, must be 142 reported even if the additional detail provided by the third digit is not 143 recognized. The enumerated values for the second digit are: 145 Other or undefined status (0) 146 Addressing status (1) 147 Mailbox status (2) 148 System status (3) 149 Network and Routing Status (4) 150 Protocol Status (5) 151 Message Content or Media Status (6) 152 Security Status (7) 154 The detail value provides more information about the status and is defined 155 relative to the subject of the status as indicated by the second digit. 157 4. Enumberated Status Codes 159 The following section defines and describes the detail status code digits. 161 4.1 Other or Undefined Status (0) 163 There is no additional detail available for other or undefined status 164 codes. The only detail digit defined is (0). 166 4.2 Address Status (1) 168 The address status reports on the specified address. It may include 169 address syntax or validity. 171 4.2.1 Other Address Status (1.0) 173 Something about the address specified in the message caused this DSN. 175 4.2.2 Bad mailbox address (1.1) 177 The mailbox specified in the address does not exist. For domain names, 178 this means the address portion to the left of the "@" sign is invalid. 179 This code is only useful for permanent failures. 181 4.2.3 Bad system address (1.2) 183 The destination system specified in the address does not exist or is 184 incapable of accepting mail. For domain names, this means the address 185 portion to the right of the "@" is invalid for mail. This codes is only 186 useful for permanent failures. 188 4.2.4 Bad mailbox address syntax (1.3) 190 The address was syntactically invalid. This can apply to any field in the 191 address. This code is only useful for permanent failures. 193 4.2.5 Mailbox address ambiguous (1.4) 195 The mailbox address as specified matches one or more recipients on the 196 destination system. This may result if a heuristic address mapping 197 algorithm is used to map the specified address to a local mailbox name. 198 This code is only useful for permanent failures. 200 4.2.6 Address Valid (1.5) 202 This mailbox address as specified was valid. This status code should be 203 used for positive delivery reports. 205 4.2.7 Mailbox has moved, No forwarding address (1.6) 207 The mailbox address is was valid but is not longer availableresident on the 208 system. This code is only useful for permanent failures. 210 4.3 Mailbox Status (2) 212 Mailbox status indicates that something having to do with the mailbox has 213 cause this DSN. Mailbox issues are assumed to be under the general control 214 of the individual recipient. 216 4.3.1 Other or undefined mailbox status (2.0) 218 The mailbox exists, but something about the destination mailbox has caused 219 the sending of this DSN. 221 4.3.2 Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages (2.1) 223 The mailbox exists, but is not accepting messages. This may be a permanent 224 error if the mailbox will never be re-enabled or a transient error if the 225 mailbox is only temporarily disabled. 227 4.3.3 Mailbox full (2.2) 229 The mailbox is full either because the user has exceeded an administrative 230 quota or the dedicated physical resources have been exceeded. The general 231 semantics implies that the recipient can delete messages to make more space 232 available. This code should be used as a persistent transient failure. 234 4.3.4 Message length exceeds administrative limit (2.3) 236 A per-mailbox administrative message length limit has been exceeded. This 237 status code should be used when the per-mailbox message length limit is 238 less than the general system limit. This code should be used as a 239 permanent failure. 241 4.3.5 Mailing list expansion problem (2.4) 243 The mailbox is a mailing list address and the mailing list was unable to be 244 expanded. This code may represent a permanent failure or a persistent 245 transient failure. 247 4.3.6 System Status (3) 249 System status indicates that something having to do with the destination 250 system has caused this DSN. System issues are assumed to be under the 251 general control of the system administrator. 253 4.3.7 Other or undefined system status (3.0) 255 The destination system exists and normally accepts mail, but something 256 about the system has caused the generation of this DSN. 258 4.3.8 System full (3.1) 260 System storage has been exceeded. The general semantics imply that the 261 individual recipient may not be able to delete material to make room for 262 additional messages. This is useful only as a persistent transient error. 264 4.3.9 System not accepting network messages (3.2) 266 The host on which the mailbox is resident is not accepting messages. 267 Examples of such conditions include an immanent shutdown or system 268 maintenance. This is useful for both permanent and permanent transient 269 errors. 271 4.3.10 System not capable of selected features (3.3) 273 Selected message features specified for the message are not supported by 274 the destination system. This is useful only as a permanent error. 276 4.3.11 Message too big for system (3.4) 278 The message is larger than per-message size limit. This limit may either 279 be for physical or administrative reasons. This is useful only as a 280 permanent error. 282 4.4 Network and Routing Status (4) 284 The networking or routing codes report status about the delivery system 285 itself, both the network and intermediate processing. 287 4.4.1 Other or undefined network or routing status (4.0) 289 Something went wrong with the networking, but it is not clear what the 290 problem is, or the problem cannot be well expressed with any of the other 291 provided detail codes. 293 4.4.2 No answer from host (4.1) 295 The outbound connection attempt was not answered, either because the remote 296 system was busy, or otherwise unable to take a call. This is useful only 297 as a persistent transient error. 299 4.4.3 Bad connection (4.2) 301 The outbound connection was completed, but was otherwise unable to complete 302 the message transaction, either because of time-out, excessive packet loss, 303 or inadequate quality. This is useful only as a persistent transient error. 305 4.4.4 Routing server failure (4.3) 307 The network system was unable to determine the next hop for the message, 308 because a nameserver was unavailable to resolve the address or provide a 309 route. This is useful only as a persistent transient error. 311 4.4.5 Unable to route (4.4) 313 The network was unable to determine the next hop for the message because 314 the necessary routing information was unavailable from the routing server. 315 This is useful for both permanent and persistent transient errors. 317 4.4.6 Network congestion (4.5) 319 The network or system was unable to deliver the message because the network 320 was congested, or the queuing was overfilled. This is useful only as a 321 persistent transient error. 323 4.4.7 Routing loop detected (4.6) 325 A routing loop caused the message to be forwarded too many times, either 326 because of incorrect routing tables or a user forwarding loop. This is 327 useful only as a persistent transient error. 329 4.4.8 Delivery time expired (4.7) 331 The message was considered too old by the rejecting system, either because 332 it remained on that host too long or because the TTL value specified by the 333 sender of the message was exceeded. This is useful only as a persistent 334 transient error. 336 4.5 Protocol Status (5) 338 4.5.1 Other or undefined protocol status (0) 340 Something was wrong with the protocol necessary to deliver the message to 341 the next hop and the problem cannot be well expressed with any of the other 342 provided detail codes. 344 4.5.2 Invalid command (5.1) 346 A command was issued which was either out of sequence or otherwise 347 unsupported. This is useful only as a permanent error. 349 4.5.3 Syntax error (5.2) 351 A command was issued which could not be interpreted, either because the 352 syntax was wrong or the command was not supported. This is useful only as a 353 permanent error. 355 4.5.4 Too many recipients (5.3) 357 More recipients were specified for the message than could have been 358 delivered by the protocol. This error should normally result in the 359 segmentation of the message into two, the remainder of the recipients to be 360 delivered on a subsequent delivery attempt. It is included in this list in 361 the event that such segmentation is not possible. This is useful only as a 362 permanent error. 364 4.5.5 Invalid command arguments (5.4) 366 A valid command was issued with invalid arguments, either because the 367 arguments were out of range or represented unrecognized features. This is 368 useful only as a permanent error. 370 4.5.6 Wrong protocol version (5.5) 372 A protocol version mis-match existed which could not be automatically 373 resolved by downgrading one of the communicating parties. This should 374 never happen in ESMTP. This is useful only as a permanent error. 376 4.6 Message Content or Media Status (6) 378 4.6.1 Other or undefined media error (6.0) 380 Something about the content of a message caused it to be considered 381 undeliverable and the problem cannot be well expressed with any of the 382 other provided detail codes. 384 4.6.2 Media not supported (6.1) 386 The media of the message is not supported by the either the delivery 387 protocol or a host in the forwarding path. This is useful only as a 388 permanent error. 390 4.6.3 Conversion required and prohibited (6.2) 392 The content of the message must be converted before it can be delivered and 393 such conversion is not permitted. Such prohibitions may be the expression 394 of the sender in the message itself or the policy of the sending host. This 395 is useful only as a permanent error. 397 4.6.4 Conversion required but not supported (6.3) 399 The message content must be converted to be forwarded but such conversion 400 is not possible or is not practical by a host in the forwarding path. This 401 condition may result when a relay supports ESMTP transport but not MIME 402 downgrade. This is useful only as a permanent error. 404 4.6.5 Conversion with loss performed (6.4) 406 This is a warning sent to the sender when message delivery was successfully 407 but when the delivery required a conversion in which some data was lost. 408 This is useful only for successful notification. 410 4.6.6 Conversion Failed (6.5) 412 A conversion was required but was unsucessful. This may be useful as a 413 permanant or persistant temporary notification. 415 4.7 Security Status (7) 417 4.7.1 Other or undefined security status (7.0) 419 Something related to security caused the message to be returned, and the 420 problem cannot be well expressed with any of the other provided detail 421 codes. This status code may also be used when the condition cannot be 422 further described because of security policies in force. 424 4.7.2 Delivery not authorized, message refused (7.1) 426 The sender is not authorized to send to the destination. This can be the 427 result of per-host or per-recipient filtering. This memo does not discuss 428 the merits of any such filtering, but provides a mechanism to report such. 429 This is useful only as a permanent error. 431 4.7.3 Mailing list expansion prohibited (7.2) 433 The sender is not authorized to send a message to the intended mailing 434 list. This is useful only as a permanent error. 436 4.7.4 Security conversion required but not possible (7.3) 438 A conversion from one secure messaging protocol to another was required for 439 delivery and such conversion was not possible. This is useful only as a 440 permanent error. 442 4.7.5 Security features not supported (7.4) 444 A message contained security features such as secure authentication which 445 could not be supported on the delivery protocol. This is useful only as a 446 permanent error. 448 4.7.6 Cryptographic failure (7.5) 450 A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or decrypt a message in 451 transport was unable to do so because necessary information such as key was 452 not available or such information was invalid. This is useful only as a 453 permanent error. 455 4.7.7 Cryptographic algorithm not supported (7.6) 457 A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or decrypt a message 458 was unable to do so because the necessary algorithm was not supported. This 459 is useful only as a permanent error. 461 4.7.8 Message integrity failure (7.7) 463 A transport system otherwise authorized to validate a message was unable to 464 do so because the message was corrupted or altered. This may be useful as 465 a permanent, transient persistent, or successful delivery code. 467 5. References 469 [RFC-821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, 470 USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982. 472 6. Security Consideration 474 This document describes a status code system with increased precision. Use 475 of these status codes may disclose information about how an internal mail 476 system is implemented beyond that currently available. 478 7. Author's Address 480 Gregory M. Vaudreuil 481 Octel Network Services 482 17060 Dallas Parkway 483 Suite 214 484 Dallas, TX 75248-1905 485 214-733-2722 486 Greg.Vaudreuil@ons.octel.com 487 8. Appendix - Collected Status Codes 489 X.1.0 Other Address Status 490 X.1.1 Bad mailbox address 491 X.1.2 Bad system address 492 X.1.3 Bad mailbox address syntax 493 X.1.4 Mailbox address ambiguous 494 X.1.5 Mailbox address valid 495 X.1.6 Mailbox has moved 497 X.2.0 Other or undefined mailbox status 498 X.2.1 Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages 499 X.2.2 Mailbox full 500 X.2.3 Message length exceeds administrative limit. 501 X.2.4 Mailing list expansion problem 503 X.3.0 Other or undefined system status 504 X.3.1 System full 505 X.3.2 System not accepting network messages 506 X.3.3 System not capable of selected features 507 X.3.4 Message too big for system 509 X.4.0 Other or undefined network or routing status 510 X.4.1 No answer from host 511 X.4.2 Bad connection 512 X.4.3 Routing server failure 513 X.4.4 Unable to route 514 X.4.5 Network congestion 515 X.4.6 Routing loop detected 516 X.4.7 Delivery time expired 518 X.5.0 Other or undefined protocol status 519 X.5.1 Invalid command 520 X.5.2 Syntax error 521 X.5.3 Too many recipients 522 X.5.4 Invalid command arguments 523 X.5.5 Wrong protocol version 525 X.6.0 Other or undefined media error 526 X.6.1 Media not supported 527 X.6.2 Conversion required and prohibited 528 X.6.3 Conversion required but not supported 529 X.6.4 Conversion with loss performed 530 X.6.5 Conversion failed 532 X.7.0 Other or undefined security status 533 X.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message refused 534 X.7.2 Mailing list expansion prohibited 535 X.7.3 Security conversion required but not possible 536 X.7.4 Security features not supported 537 X.7.5 Cryptographic failure 538 X.7.6 Cryptographic algorithm not supported 539 X.7.7 Message integrity failure 540 9. Appendix - Existing SMTP Reply-Codes From RFC 821 542 211 System status, or system help reply 543 214 Help message 544 [Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a 545 particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only 546 to the human user] 547 220 Service ready 548 221 Service closing transmission channel 549 250 Requested mail action okay, completed 550 251 User not local; will forward to 552 354 Start mail input; end with . 554 421 Service not available, 555 closing transmission channel 556 [This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it 557 must shut down] 558 450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable 559 [E.g., mailbox busy] 560 451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing 561 452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage 563 500 Syntax error, command unrecognized 564 [This may include errors such as command line too long] 565 501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments 566 502 Command not implemented 567 503 Bad sequence of commands 568 504 Command parameter not implemented 569 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable 570 [E.g., mailbox not found, no access] 571 551 User not local; please try 572 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation 573 553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed 574 [E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect] 575 554 Transaction failed