idnits 2.17.1 draft-newman-mime-cdisp-metadata-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 (2024-04-20) 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 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 Introduction 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. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([CDISP], [MIME-IMB]), 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 -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? RFC 2119 keyword, line 54: '...osition type, it SHOULD indicate in so...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 58: '...lefile body part SHOULD have a "metada...' 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 (July 1998) is 9411 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: 'KEYWORDS' is mentioned on line 47, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2234 (ref. 'ABNF') (Obsoleted by RFC 4234) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Newman 3 Internet Draft: Metadata Content-Disposition Type Innosoft 4 Document: draft-newman-mime-cdisp-metadata-01.txt July 1998 5 Expires in six months 7 Metadata Content-Disposition Type 9 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 areas, 13 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 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-Drafts 19 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 20 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 (US 27 West Coast). 29 Abstract 31 The Content-Disposition [CDISP] header defines two disposition 32 types: ``inline'' and ``attachment'' which can affect presentation 33 of a MIME [MIME-IMB] body part. There have been a number of cases 34 where one MIME body part contains metadata for another MIME body 35 part and is neither suitable for inline display by itself, nor is 36 it useful if treated as an independent attachment and saved to a 37 file by itself. If the recipient UA is not familiar with the 38 specific media type, the user often is presented with a useless 39 unrecognizable attachment. This memo proposes a third disposition 40 type, ``metadata'', to address this situation. 42 1. Conventions Used in this Document 44 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" 45 in this document are to be interpreted as defined in "Key words for 46 use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [KEYWORDS]. 48 2. The Metadata Disposition Type 50 A body part can be designated "metadata" if it contains metadata 51 for one or more other body parts in the containing multipart and is 52 unlikely to be useful if saved to a file by itself or viewed 53 independently. If an interpreting user agent sees an unknown media 54 type with a "metadata" disposition type, it SHOULD indicate in some 55 way that the body part is unlikely to be useful to the user. 57 For example, in a multipart/appledouble [MACMIME], the 58 application/applefile body part SHOULD have a "metadata" 59 disposition type as it is usually useless by itself. 61 In a multipart/security [MIME-SEC], the signature body part is 62 usually useless without the text it signs and thus would usually 63 have a disposition type of "metadata." 65 2. Amended Formal Syntax 67 This amends the formal syntax [ABNF] for "disposition-type" 68 [CDISP]: 70 disposition-type =/ "metadata" 72 3. Security Considerations 74 This does not add additional security considerations beyond those 75 which already apply to the Content-Disposition header field 76 [CDISP]. 78 4. References 80 [ABNF] Crocker, Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: 81 ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium, Demon Internet Ltd, 82 November 1997. 84 [CDISP] Troost, Dorner, Moore, "Communicating Presentation 85 Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header 86 Field", RFC 2183, New Century Systems, Qualcomm Incorporated, 87 University of Tennessee, August 1997. 89 [MACMIME] Faltstrom P., Crocker, D., and E. Fair, "MIME 90 Encapsulation of Macintosh Files - MacMIME", RFC 1740, KTH, 91 Brandenburg Consulting, Apple Computer Inc., December 1994. 93 [MIME-IMB] Freed, Borenstein, "Mulitpurpose Internet Mail 94 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 95 2045, Innosoft, First Virtual, November 1996. 97 [MIME-SEC] Galvin, Murphy, Crocker, Freed, "Security Multiparts for 98 MIME: Multipart/Signed and Multipart/Encrypted", RFC 1847, Trusted 99 Information Systems, CyberCash, Innosoft International, October 100 1995. 102 5. Author's Address 104 Chris Newman 105 Innosoft International, Inc. 106 1050 Lakes Drive 107 West Covina, CA 91790 USA 109 Email: chris.newman@innosoft.com