idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 343. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 354. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 361. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 367. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 7, 2007) is 6259 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: 'Knitting' is mentioned on line 201, but not defined -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Sieve Working Group B. Leiba 3 Internet-Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 4 Intended status: Standards Track M. Haardt 5 Expires: September 8, 2007 freenet.de AG 6 March 7, 2007 8 Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto 9 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-02 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2007. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 40 Abstract 42 This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for 43 notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. 45 Table of Contents 47 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 1.2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 2.1. Notify tag ":method" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 2.2. Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 2.3. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 2.4. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 13 72 1. Introduction 74 1.1. Overview 76 The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a 77 framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify 78 the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs 79 are used to generate notifications by e-mail. 81 1.2. Conventions used in this document 83 Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] section 1.1, including 84 the use of [Kwds]. 86 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 87 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 88 document are to be interpreted as described in [Kwds]. 90 2. Definition 92 The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a 93 "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering 94 message". 96 2.1. Notify tag ":method" 98 The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as 99 specified in [mailto]. URI headers with hname "from", "subject" and 100 "received" are ignored if specified; all other URI headers are 101 accepted. 103 [[Barry ignored: Should we ignore them, or should their presence be 104 an error?]] 106 [[Michael ignored: The mailto URI spec allows for either. I like 107 ignoring them more, because it fits into the picture of ignoring a 108 different sender for other message-generating actions, if it is 109 forbidden.]] 111 [[Barry ignored 2: My thinking, when I suggested error, was that a 112 script that explicitly tried to use them, even when this spec says 113 "don't", would be broken. I see no reasonable scenario through which 114 the mailto URI could be derived in a computed way that would include 115 those fields, and thus justify ignoring them rather than considering 116 them an error.]] 118 2.2. Notify tag ":importance" 120 The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification 121 mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. 122 Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or 123 importance indication on the notification message. 125 2.3. Notify tag ":message" 127 o Unless overridden by ":from", the "From:" header field and the 128 envelope sender of the notification message are set either to the 129 envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, 130 or to a fixed address (so it "comes from the notification 131 system"), at the discretion of the implementation. 133 [[Barry sender: Alternative: the "from" is set to the envelope to, 134 and the "sender" is set to the adderss of the notification 135 system?]] 137 o The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the 138 notification message are set to the address(es) specified in URI 139 (including any URI headers where the hname is "to"). 141 o The "Received:" field from the triggering message are retained in 142 the notification message, as these may help detect and prevent 143 mail loops. 145 o The "Subject:" field of the notification message contains the 146 value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in 147 [Notify]. If there is no :message tag, the subject is retained 148 from the triggering message. Note that Sieve [Variables] can be 149 used to advantage here, as shown in the example in Section 3. 151 o All other header fields of the notification message either are as 152 specified by URI headers, or have implementation-specific values; 153 their values are not defined here. It is suggested that the 154 implementation capitalizes the first letter of URI headers and 155 adds a space character after the colon between the mail header 156 name and value when adding URI headers to the message. 158 o If the mailto URI contains a "body" header, the value of that 159 header is used as the body of the notification message. If there 160 is no "body" header, the body of the notification message is 161 empty. 163 [[Barry body: I'd like some way to specify that the body contain 164 some excerpt from the body of the triggering message. Does anyone 165 else want this, or should we just say "Barry's being silly," and 166 forget it?]] 168 2.4. Other Definitions 170 Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email 171 message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The 172 notification message contains the "Received:" fields from the 173 triggering message to allow loop detection as described in [RFC2821], 174 section 6.2. The implementation MUST allow messages with empty 175 envelope senders to trigger notifications. 177 [[comment 1: Mailto URIs focus on the message, not its submission. 178 There is no way to specify envelope parameters, require encryption or 179 authentication. Sure enough there is more than SMTP, so mailto is 180 fine not to address this specific transport, but should we ever need 181 more, it can not be specified as URI header, because there is no room 182 in its namespace.]] 184 3. Examples 186 Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org): 188 Return-Path: 189 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 190 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 191 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 192 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 193 Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com> 194 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100 195 Precedence: list 196 List-Id: Knitting Mailing List 197 Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com 198 Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com 199 From: "Jeff Smith" 200 To: "Knitting Mailing List" 201 Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater 203 I just finished a great new sweater! 205 Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org): 207 require ["notify", "variables"]; 209 if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" { 210 if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" { 211 notify :method "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net" 212 :message "From ${1} list: ${2}" 213 :importance "3"; 214 } 215 } 217 Notification message: 219 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 220 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 221 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 222 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 223 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500 224 Message-ID: 225 From: 226 To: <0123456789@sms.example.net> 227 Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater 229 Note that: 231 o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for 232 the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering 233 message. 235 o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification 236 message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering 237 message. 239 o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server 240 again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org" 241 received line to avoid sending another notification. 243 4. Internationalization Considerations 245 [[Internationalization: What do we say here?]] 247 5. Security Considerations 249 Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the 250 notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail 251 automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent 252 into an insecure environment. 254 The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail 255 loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this 256 specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops. 258 Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in 259 [Notify]. 261 6. IANA Considerations 263 [[IANA to-do: What do we need to do to actually get this set up with 264 IANA?]] 265 The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve 266 notification mechanism specified in this document: 268 To: iana@iana.org 269 Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism 270 Mechanism name: mailto 271 Mechanism URI: draft-duerst-mailto-bis (change to RFC----) 272 Mechanism-specific tags: none 273 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 274 Person and email address to contact for further information: 275 Michael Haardt 277 This information should be added to the list of sieve notification 278 mechanisms given on 279 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification. 281 7. References 283 7.1. Normative References 285 [Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 286 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 288 [Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. 289 Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in 290 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2005. 292 [Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 293 Filtering Language", work in 294 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis, November 2005. 296 [mailto] Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto URI 297 scheme", work in progress, draft-duerst-mailto-bis, 298 February 2005. 300 7.2. Non-Normative References 302 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 303 RFC 2821, April 2001. 305 [Variables] 306 Homme, K., "Sieve Extension: Variables", work in 307 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-variables, October 2005. 309 Authors' Addresses 311 Barry Leiba 312 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 313 19 Skyline Drive 314 Hawthorne, NY 10532 315 US 317 Phone: +1 914 784 7941 318 Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com 320 Michael Haardt 321 freenet.de AG 322 Willstaetter Str. 13 323 Duesseldorf, NRW 40549 324 Germany 326 Phone: +49 241 53087 520 327 Email: michael.haardt@freenet-ag.de 329 Full Copyright Statement 331 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 333 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 334 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 335 retain all their rights. 337 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 338 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 339 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 340 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 341 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 342 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 343 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 345 Intellectual Property 347 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 348 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 349 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 350 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 351 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 352 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 353 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 354 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 356 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 357 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 358 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 359 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 360 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 361 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 363 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 364 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 365 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 366 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 367 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 369 Acknowledgment 371 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 372 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).