From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 1 17:17:54 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01948 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:17:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA1M9h914015 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:09:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA1M9g814010 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:09:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from foon.sendmail.com (smtp.sendmail.com [209.246.26.40]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id fA1M9CP13232 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified OK); Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by foon.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id fA1M97o04853 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:09:07 -0800 Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA1M9Ht27964; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:09:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eric@mathieu.smi.sendmail.com) Message-Id: <200111012209.fA1M9Ht27964@mathieu.smi.sendmail.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Steve Hole From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: Eric Allman , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-reply-to: Mail from Steve Hole dated Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:38:58 PDT Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:09:16 -0800 X-Filtered: Sendmail MIME Filter v1.0.7 foon.sendmail.com fA1M97o04853 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Sorry for the delay. I've taken Steve's suggestion and added the following paragraph into section 4.2: In some cases, the total length of (local-envid + fqhn + 1) (for the `@' sign) may exceed the total acceptable length of ENVID (100). In this case, the fqhn SHOULD be replaced by the SHA1(fqhn) encoded into BASE64. After encoding, the 160 bit SHA-1 will be a 27 octet string, which limits local-envid to 72 octets. Implementors are encouraged to use an algorithm for the local-envid that is reasonably unique. For example, sequential integers have a high probability of intersecting with sequential integers generated by a different host, but a SHA-1 of the cur- rent time of day concatenated with the host's IP address and a random number are unlikely to intersect with the same algorithm generated by a different host. A bit wordy, but I wanted to try to explain it clearly. Comments? eric ============= In Reply To: =========================================== : From: Steve Hole : Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents : Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:38:58 -0700 : : On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:57:53 -0700 Eric Allman : wrote: : : > : > Interesting idea -- create (locally) the full : > : > unique-string@fully.qualified.host.name : > : > which can be arbitrarily long, and then SHA1 it so you get something : > manageable. This would make it fit into the existing definition of : > ENVID. Unfortunately, the failure mode could be nasty, assuming : > the server discards duplicates. : : I would suggest that we make a recommendation that FQDN is a good : candidate for generating uniqueness. Further, if the FQDN can't be used : directly because it is too long, then a SHA1 hash of the FQDN is a : suitable substitute. It is further recommended that the application : create the lhs of the envid such that it conveys uniqueness over a large : set of possibilities. The combination is *very* likely to be unique. : : If the fqdn can't be used because it is not reliable or doesn't make sense : (the allocated address scenario), then it is left to the application to : provide unique information. : : Cheers. : --- : Steve Hole : Chief Technology Officer - - Billing and Payment Systems : ACI Worldwide - MessagingDirect : : Phone: 780-424-4922 : From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 2 12:32:14 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12547 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:32:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA2HP8K04777 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:25:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (IDENT:root@rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA2HP7804772 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from kepler.esys.ca (kepler.esys.ca [198.161.92.108]) (authenticated) by rembrandt.esys.ca (8.11.0.Beta0/8.11.0.Beta0) with ESMTP id fA2HP1I23477; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:25:06 -0700 From: Steve Hole Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:24:44 -0700 To: Eric Allman Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org In-Reply-To: <200111012209.fA1M9Ht27964@mathieu.smi.sendmail.com> References: <200111012209.fA1M9Ht27964@mathieu.smi.sendmail.com> Mail from Steve Hole dated Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:38:58 PDT Message-ID: X-Mailer: Execmail for Linux 5.3 b1 Build (1) -- Evaluation Copy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:09:16 -0800 Eric Allman wrote: > Sorry for the delay. I've taken Steve's suggestion and added the > following paragraph into section 4.2: > > In some cases, the total length of (local-envid + fqhn + 1) > (for the `@' sign) may exceed the total acceptable length of > ENVID (100). In this case, the fqhn SHOULD be replaced by the > SHA1(fqhn) encoded into BASE64. After encoding, the 160 bit > SHA-1 will be a 27 octet string, which limits local-envid to 72 > octets. Implementors are encouraged to use an algorithm for the > local-envid that is reasonably unique. For example, sequential > integers have a high probability of intersecting with sequential > integers generated by a different host, but a SHA-1 of the cur- > rent time of day concatenated with the host's IP address and a > random number are unlikely to intersect with the same algorithm > generated by a different host. Sounds very good to me. --- Steve Hole Chief Technology Officer - - Billing and Payment Systems ACI Worldwide - MessagingDirect Phone: 780-424-4922 From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 2 16:20:16 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18637 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:20:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA2LCM414272 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA2LCL814268 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from foon.sendmail.com (smtp.sendmail.com [209.246.26.40]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id fA2LCQP27662 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified OK) for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by foon.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id fA2LCLo27580 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO) for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:12:21 -0800 Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fA2LCet32794 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:12:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eric@mathieu.smi.sendmail.com) Message-Id: <200111022112.fA2LCet32794@mathieu.smi.sendmail.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric Subject: new msgtrk drafts submitted Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed ; boundary="==_Exmh_18622663660" Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:12:40 -0800 X-Filtered: Sendmail MIME Filter v1.0.7 foon.sendmail.com fA2LCLo27580 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multipart MIME message. --==_Exmh_18622663660 Content-Type: text/plain I've submitted draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt and draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt. Copies of what I sent in are attached. eric --==_Exmh_18622663660 Content-Type: text/plain ; name="draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext.txt" Content-Description: draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext.txt" Internet Draft E. Allman draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt Sendmail, Inc. Valid for six months T. Hansen Updates: RFC 1891 AT&T Laboratories November 2, 2001 SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking Status of This Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted to the ietf-msgtrk@imc.org mailing list. An archive of the mailing list may be found at http://www.imc.org/ietf-msgtrk/index.html Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 1. Abstract This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby a client may mark a message for future tracking. Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension November 2, 2001 2. Other Documents and Conformance The model used for Message Tracking is described in [DRAFT- MTRK-MODEL]. Doing a Message Tracking query is intended as a "last resort" mechanism. Normally, Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) [RFC- DSN-SMTP] and Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [RFC-MDN] would provide the primary delivery status. Only if the message is not received, or there is no response from either of these mechanisms should a Message Tracking query be issued. The definition of the base64 token is imported from section 6.8 of [RFC-MIME]. Syntax notation in this document conforms to [RFC-ABNF]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-KEYWORDS]. 3. SMTP Extension Overview The Message Tracking SMTP service extension uses the SMTP service extension mechanism described in [RFC-ESMTP]. The following service extension is hereby defined: (1) The name of the SMTP service extension is "Message Tracking". (2) The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is "MTRK". (3) No parameters are allowed with this EHLO keyword value. Future documents may extend this specification by specifying options. (4) One optional parameter using the keyword "MTRK" is added to the MAIL command. In addition, the ENVID parameter of the MAIL command (as defined in RFC 1891 sections 5.4) MUST be supported, with extensions as described below. The ORCPT parameter of the RCPT command (as defined in RFC 1891 section 5.2) MUST also be supported. (5) The maximum length of a MAIL command line is increased by 40 characters by the possible addition of the MTRK keyword and value. Note that the 507 character extension of RCPT commands for the ORCPT parameter and the 107 character extension of MAIL commands for the ENVID parameter as mandated by RFC 1891 [RFC-DSN-SMTP] must also be included. (6) No SMTP verbs are defined by this extension. Allman & Hansen [Page 2] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension November 2, 2001 4. The Extended MAIL Command The extended MAIL command is issued by an SMTP client when it wishes to inform an SMTP server that message tracking information should be retained for future querying. The extended MAIL command is identical to the MAIL command as defined in [RFC-SMTP], except that MTRK, ORCPT, and ENVID parameters appear after the address. 4.1. The MTRK parameter to the ESMTP MAIL command Any sender wishing to request the retention of data for further tracking of message must first tag that message as trackable by creating two values A and B: A = some-large-random-number B = SHA1(A) The large random number A is calculated on a host-dependent basis. See [RFC-RANDOM] for a discussion of choosing good random numbers. This random number MUST be at least 128 bits but MUST NOT be more than 1024 bits. The 128-bit hash B of A is then computed using the SHA-1 algorithm as described in [NIST-SHA1]. The sender then base64 encodes value B and passes that value as the mtrk-certifier on the MAIL command: mtrk-parameter = "MTRK=" mtrk-certifier [ ":" mtrk-timeout ] mtrk-certifier = base64 ; authenticator mtrk-timeout = 1*9digit ; seconds until timeout A is stored in the originator's tracking database to validate future tracking requests as described in [DRAFT-MTRK- MTQP]. B is stored in tracking databases of compliant receiver MTAs and used to authenticate future tracking requests. The mtrk-timeout field indicates the number of seconds that the client requests that this tracking information be retained on intermediate servers, as measured from the initial receipt of the message at that server. Servers MAY ignore this value if it violates local policy. In particular, servers MAY silently enforce an upper limit to how long they will retain tracking data; this limit MUST be at least one day. If no mtrk-timeout field is specified then the server should use a local default. This default SHOULD be 8-10 days and MUST be at least one day. Notwithstanding this clause, the information MUST NOT be expired while the message remains in the queue for this server: that is, an MTQP server MUST NOT deny knowledge of a message while that same message sits in the MTA queue. If the message is relayed to another compliant SMTP server, the MTA acting as the client SHOULD pass an mtrk-timeout field Allman & Hansen [Page 3] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension November 2, 2001 equal to the remaining life of that message tracking information. Specifically, the tracking timeout is decremented by the number of seconds the message has lingered at this MTA and then passed to the next MTA. If the decremented tracking timeout is less than or equal to zero, the entire MTRK parameter MUST NOT be passed to the next MTA; essentially, the entire tracking path is considered to be lost at that point. See [RFC-DELIVERYBY] section 4 for an explanation of why a timeout is used instead of an absolute time. 4.2. Use of ENVID To function properly, Message Tracking requires that each message have a unique identifier that is never reused by any other message. For that purpose, if the MTRK parameter is given, an ENVID parameter MUST be included, and the syntax of ENVID from RFC 1891 section 5.4 is extended as follows: envid-parameter = "ENVID=" unique-envid unique-envid = local-envid "@" fqhn local-envid = xtext fqhn = xtext The unique-envid MUST be chosen in such a way that the same ENVID will never be used by any other message sent from this system or any other system. In most cases, this means setting fqhn to be the fully qualified host name of the system generating this ENVID, and local-envid to an identifier that is never re-used by that host. In some cases, the total length of (local-envid + fqhn + 1) (for the `@' sign) may exceed the total acceptable length of ENVID (100). In this case, the fqhn SHOULD be replaced by the SHA1(fqhn) encoded into BASE64. After encoding, the 160 bit SHA-1 will be a 27 octet string, which limits local-envid to 72 octets. Implementors are encouraged to use an algorithm for the local-envid that is reasonably unique. For example, sequential integers have a high probability of intersecting with sequential integers generated by a different host, but a SHA-1 of the current time of day concatenated with the host's IP address and a random number are unlikely to intersect with the same algorithm generated by a different host. Any resubmissions of this message into the message transmission system MUST assign a new ENVID. In this context, "resubmission" includes forwarding or resending a message from a user agent, but does not include MTA-level aliasing or forwarding where the message does not leave and re-enter the message transmission system. 4.3. Forwarding Tracking Certifiers MTAs SHOULD forward unexpired tracking certifiers to compliant mailers as the mail is transferred during regular hop- to-hop transfers. If the "downstream" MTA is not MTRK- Allman & Hansen [Page 4] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension November 2, 2001 compliant, then the MTRK= parameter MUST be deleted. If the downstream MTA is DSN-compliant, then the ENVID and ORCPT parameters MUST NOT be deleted. If aliasing, forwarding, or other redirection of a recipient occurs, and the result of the redirection is exactly one recipient, then the MTA SHOULD treat this as an ordinary hop-to-hop transfer and forward the MTRK=, ENVID=, and ORCPT= values; these values MUST NOT be modified. MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when a recipient is aliased, forwarded, or otherwise redirected and the redirection results in more than one recipient. However, an MTA MAY designate one of the multiple recipients as the "primary" recipient to which tracking requests shall be forwarded; other addresses MUST NOT receive tracking certifiers. MTAs MUST NOT forward MTRK certifiers when doing mailing list expansion. 5. Security Issues 5.1. Denial of service An attacker could attempt to flood the database of a server by submitting large numbers of small, tracked messages. In this case, a site may elect to lower its maximum retention period retroactively. 5.2. Confidentiality The mtrk-authenticator value (``A'') must be hard to predict and not reused. The originating client must take reasonable precautions to protect the secret. For example, if the secret is stored in a message store (e.g., a "Sent" folder), the client must make sure the secret isn't accessible by attackers, particularly on a shared store. Many site administrators believe that concealing names and topologies of internal systems and networks is an important security feature. MTAs need to balance such desires with the need to provide adequate tracking information. In some cases site administrators may want to treat delivery to an alias as final delivery in order to separate roles from individuals. For example, sites implementing ``postmaster'' or ``webmaster'' as aliases may not wish to expose the identity of those individuals by permitting tracking through those aliases. In other cases, providing the tracking information for an alias is important, such as when the alias points to the user's preferred public address. Therefore, implementors are encouraged to provide mechanisms by which site administrators can choose between these alternatives. Allman & Hansen [Page 5] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension November 2, 2001 6. Acknowledgements Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this draft, including Philip Hazel, Alexey Melnikov, Lyndon Nerenberg, Chris Newman, and Gregory Neil Shapiro. 7. References [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.'' draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000. [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query Protocol.'' draft-ietf- msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt. November 2000. [RFC-ABNF] Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997. [RFC-DELIVERYBY] D. Newman, ``Deliver By SMTP Service Extension.'' RFC 2852. June 2000. [RFC-DSN-REPT] G. Vaudreuil, ``The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages.'' RFC 1892. January 1996. [RFC-DSN-SMTP] K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1891. January 1996. [RFC-DSN-STAT] K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1894. January 1996. [RFC-EMSSC] G. Vaudreuil, ``Enhanced Mail System Status Codes.'' RFC 1893. January 1996. [RFC-ESMTP] Rose, M., Stefferud, E., Crocker, D., Klensin, J. and N. Freed, ``SMTP Service Extensions.'' STD 10, RFC 1869. November 1995. [RFC-KEYWORDS] S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997. [RFC-MDN] R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposition Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998. [RFC-MIME] N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail Allman & Hansen [Page 6] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension November 2, 2001 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996. [RFC-MSGFMT] P. Resnick, editor, ``Internet Message Format.'' RFC 2822. April 2001. [RFC-RANDOM] D. Eastlake, S. Crocker, and J. Schiller, ``Randomness Recommendations for Security.'' RFC 1750. December 1994. [RFC-RELATED] E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC 2387. August 1998. [NIST-SHA1] NIST FIPS PUB 180-1, ``Secure Hash Standard.'' National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. May 1994. DRAFT. [RFC-SMTP] J. Klensin, editor, ``Simple Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2821. April 2001. 8. Authors' Addresses Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. 6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor Emeryville, CA 94608 U.S.A. E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Fax: +1 510 594 5429 Tony Hansen AT&T Laboratories Lincroft, NJ 07738 U.S.A. Phone: +1 732 576 3207 E-Mail: tony@att.com Allman & Hansen [Page 7] --==_Exmh_18622663660 Content-Type: text/plain ; name="draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat.txt" Content-Description: draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat.txt" Internet Draft E. Allman draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt Sendmail, Inc. Valid for six months November 2, 2001 Updates: RFC 1893 The Message/Tracking-Status MIME Extension Status of This Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted to the ietf-msgtrk@imc.org mailing list. An archive of the mailing list may be found at http://www.imc.org/ietf-msgtrk/index.html Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 1. Abstract Message Tracking is expected to be used to determine the status of undelivered e-mail upon request. Tracking is used in conjunction with Delivery Status Notifications [RFC-DSN-SMTP] and Message Disposition Notifications [RFC-MDN]; generally, a message tracking request will be issued only when a DSN or MDN has not been received within a reasonable timeout period. This memo defines a MIME [RFC-MIME] content-type for message tracking status in the same spirit as RFC 1894, ``An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications'' [RFC-DSN-STAT]. Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 It is to be issued upon a request as described in ``Message Tracking Query Protocol'' [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP]. This memo defines only the format of the status information. An extension to SMTP [RFC-ESMTP] to label messages for further tracking and request tracking status is defined in a separate memo [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT]. 2. Other Documents and Conformance The model used for Message Tracking is described in [DRAFT- MTRK-MODEL]. Message tracking is intended for use as a "last resort" mechanism. Normally, Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) [RFC- DSN-SMTP] and Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [RFC-MDN] would provide the primary delivery status. Only if no response is received from either of these mechanisms would Message Tracking be used. This document is based on [RFC-DSN-STAT]. Sections 1.3 (Terminology), 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields), 2.1.2 ("*-type" subfields), and 2.1.3 (Lexical tokens imported from RFC 822) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] are included into this document by reference. Other sections are further incorporated as described herein. Syntax notation in this document conforms to [RFC-ABNF]. The following lexical tokens, defined in [RFC-MSGFMT], are used in the ABNF grammar for MTSNs: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical token is defined in [RFC-HOSTREQ]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-KEYWORDS]. 3. Format of a Message Tracking Status Notification A Message Tracking Status Notification (MTSN) is intended to be returned as the body of a Message Tracking request [DRAFT-MTRK- MTQP]. The actual body MUST be a multipart/related [RFC-RELATED] with type parameter of "message/tracking-status"; each subpart MUST be of type "message/tracking-status" as described herein. The multipart/related body can include multiple message/tracking-status parts if an MTQP server chains requests to the next server; see [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] and [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] for more information about chaining. 3.1. The message/tracking-status content-type The message/tracking-status content-type is defined as follows: Allman [Page 2] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 MIME type name: message MIME subtype name: tracking-status Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and MUST be used to maintain readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers. Security considerations: discussed in section 4 of this memo. The body of a message/tracking-status is modeled after [RFC-DSN-STAT]. That body consists of one or more "fields" formatted to according to the ABNF of RFC 2822 header "fields" (see [RFC-MSGFMT]). The per-message fields appear first, followed by a blank line. Following the per-message fields are one or more groups of per-recipient fields. Each group of per- recipient fields is preceded by a blank line. Note that there will be a blank line between the final per-recipient field and the MIME boundary, since one CRLF is necessary to terminate the field, and a second is necessary to introduce the MIME boundary. Formally, the syntax of the message/tracking-status content is as follows: tracking-status-content = per-message-fields 1*( CRLF per-recipient-fields ) The per-message fields are described in section 3.2. The per- recipient fields are described in section 3.3. 3.1.1. General conventions for MTSN fields Section 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] is included herein by reference. Notably, the definition of xtext is identical to that of that document. 3.1.2. *-type subfields Section 2.1.2 (*-type subfields) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] is included herein by reference. Notably, the definitions of address-type, diagnostic-type, and MTA-name type are identical to that of RFC 1894. 3.2. Per-Message MTSN Fields Some fields of an MTSN apply to all of the addresses in a single envelope. These fields may appear at most once in any MTSN. These fields are used to correlate the MTSN with the original message transaction and to provide additional information which may be useful to gateways. per-message-fields = original-envelope-id-field CRLF reporting-mta-field CRLF arrival-date CRLF *( extension-field CRLF ) Allman [Page 3] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 3.2.1. The Original-Envelope-Id field The Original-Envelope-Id field is defined as in section 2.2.1 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.2.2. The Reporting-MTA field The Reporting-MTA field is defined as in section 2.2.2 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.2.3. The Arrival-Date field The Arrival-Date field is defined as in section 2.2.5 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.3. Per-Recipient MTSN fields An MTSN contains information about attempts to deliver a message to one or more recipients. The delivery information for any particular recipient is contained in a group of contiguous per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line. The syntax for the group of per-recipient fields is as follows: per-recipient-fields = original-recipient-field CRLF final-recipient-field CRLF action-field CRLF status-field CRLF [ remote-mta-field CRLF ] [ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ] [ will-retry-until-field CRLF ] *( extension-field CRLF ) 3.3.1. Original-Recipient field The Original-Recipient field is defined as in section 2.3.1 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.3.2. Final-Recipient field The required Final-Recipient field is defined as in section 2.3.2 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.3.3. Action field The required Action field indicates the action performed by the Reporting-MTA as a result of its attempt to deliver the message to this recipient address. This field MUST be present for each recipient named in the MTSN. The syntax is as defined in section 2.3.3 of RFC 1894. This field is REQUIRED. Allman [Page 4] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 Valid actions are: failed The message could not be delivered. If DSNs have been enabled, a "failed" DSN should already have been returned. delayed The message is currently waiting in the MTA queue for future delivery. Essentially, this action means "the message is located, and it is here." delivered The message has been successfully delivered to the final recipient. This includes "delivery" to a mailing list exploder. It does not indicate that the message has been read. No further information is available; in particular, the tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. expanded The message has been successfully delivered to the recipient address as specified by the sender, and forwarded by the Reporting-MTA beyond that destination to multiple additional recipient addresses. However, these additional addresses are not trackable, and the tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. relayed The message has been delivered into an environment that does not support message tracking. No further information is available; in particular, the tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. transferred The message has been transferred to another MTRK-compliant MTA. The tracking agent SHOULD attempt further "downstream" tracking requests unless that information is already given in a chaining response. opaque The message may or may not have been seen by this system. No further information is available or forthcoming. There may be some confusion between when to use "expanded" versus "delivered". Whenever possible, "expanded" should be used when the MTA knows that the message will be sent to multiple addresses. However, in some cases the delivery occurs to a program which, unknown to the MTA, causes mailing list expansion; in the extreme case, the delivery may be to a real mailbox that has the side effect of list expansion. If the MTA cannot ensure that this delivery will cause list expansion, it should set the action to "delivered". Allman [Page 5] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 3.3.4. Status field The Status field is defined as in RFC 1894 section 2.3.4. A new code is added to RFC 1893 [RFC-EMSSC], "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", X.1.9 Message relayed to non-compliant mailer" The mailbox address specified was valid, but the message has been relayed to a system that does not speak this protocol; no further information can be provided. A 2.1.9 Status field MUST be used exclusively with a "relayed" Action field. This field is REQUIRED. 3.3.5. Remote-MTA field The Remote-MTA field is defined as in section Reference 2.3.5 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field MUST NOT be included if no delivery attempts have been made or if the Action field has value "opaque". If delivery to some agent other than an MTA (for example, a Local Delivery Agent) then this field MAY be included, giving the name of the host on which that agent was contacted. 3.3.6. Last-Attempt-Date field The Last-Attempt-Date field is defined as in section Reference 2.3.7 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED if any delivery attempt has been made and the Action field does not have value "opaque", in which case it will specify when it last attempted to deliver this message to another MTA or other Delivery Agent. This field MUST NOT be included if no delivery attempts have been made. 3.3.7. Will-Retry-Until field The Will-Retry-Until field is defined as in section Reference 2.3.8 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. If the message is not in the local queue or the Action field has the value ``opaque'' the Will-Retry-Until field MUST NOT be included; otherwise, this field SHOULD be included. 3.4. Extension fields Future extension fields may be defined as defined in section 2.4 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. 3.5. Interaction Between MTAs and LDAs A message that has been delivered to a Local Delivery Agent (LDA) that understands message tracking (in particular, an LDA speaking LMTP [RFC-LMTP] that supports the MTRK extension) SHOULD pass the tracking request to the LDA. In this case, the Action field for the MTA->LDA exchange will look the same as a transfer to a compliant MTA; that is, a "transferred" tracking Allman [Page 6] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 status will be issued. 4. Security Issues 4.1. Forgery Malicious servers may attempt to subvert message tracking and return false information. This could result in misdirection or misinterpretation of results. 4.2. Confidentiality Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There may be cases in which a message recipient is autoforwarding messages but does not wish to divulge the address to which the messages are autoforwarded. The desire for such confidentiality will probably be heightened as "wireless mailboxes", such as pagers, become more widely used as autoforward addresses. MTA authors are encouraged to provide a mechanism which enables the end user to preserve the confidentiality of a forwarding address. Depending on the degree of confidentiality required, and the nature of the environment to which a message were being forwarded, this might be accomplished by one or more of: (a) respond with a "relayed" tracking status when a message is forwarded to a confidential forwarding address, and disabling further message tracking requests. (b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a "delivered" tracking status, re-sending the message to the confidential forwarding address, and disabling further message tracking requests. The tracking algorithms MUST NOT allow tracking through list expansions. When a message is delivered to a list, a tracking request MUST respond with an "expanded" tracking status and MUST NOT display the contents of the list. 5. Acknowledgements Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this draft, including Tony Hansen, Philip Hazel, Alexey Melnikov, Lyndon Nerenberg, Chris Newman, Gregory Neil Shapiro, and Dan Wing. 6. References [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.'' draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000. [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query Protocol.'' draft-ietf- msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt. November 2000. Allman [Page 7] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT] E. Allman, ``SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking.'' draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt. December 2000. [RFC-ABNF] Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997. [RFC-DSN-REPT] G. Vaudreuil, ``The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages.'' RFC 1892. January 1996. [RFC-DSN-SMTP] K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1891. January 1996. [RFC-DSN-STAT] K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1894. January 1996. [RFC-EMSSC] G. Vaudreuil, ``Enhanced Mail System Status Codes.'' RFC 1893. January 1996. [RFC-ESMTP] Rose, M., Stefferud, E., Crocker, D., Klensin, J. and N. Freed, ``SMTP Service Extensions.'' STD 10, RFC 1869. November 1995. [RFC-HOSTREQ] R. Braden (ed.), ``Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support.'' STD 3, RFC 1123. October 1989. [RFC-KEYWORDS] S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997. [RFC-LMTP] J. Myers, ``Local Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2033. October 1996. [RFC-MDN] R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposition Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998. [RFC-MIME] N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996. [RFC-MSGFMT] P. Resnick, editor, ``Internet Message Format.'' RFC 2822. April 2001. Allman [Page 8] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status November 2, 2001 [RFC-RELATED] E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC 2387. August 1998. 7. Author's Address Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. 6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor Emeryville, CA 94608 U.S.A. E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Fax: +1 510 594 5429 Allman [Page 9] --==_Exmh_18622663660-- From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 5 14:38:55 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04242 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 14:38:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA5JNrN11963 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:23:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA5JNq811959 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01KACCTMPCS00013KR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-msgtrk@imc.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:23:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:22:43 -0800 (PST) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Working group last call on protocol document set In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:16:24 -0800 (PST)" <01KACD24BX3A0013KR@mauve.mrochek.com> To: ned.freed@mrochek.com Cc: Steve Hole , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org, Ned Freed , IETF Secretariat Message-id: <01KACD6PWKES0013KR@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Resending -- bad address the first time. > At this time, I would like to issue a last call on the collection of > protocol documents produced by this working group. This includes the > documents: > draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt > draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt > draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt > Ned, if you would be so kind? I'm a bit confused here. The subject line says "working group last call" but the AD only gets involved when requesting an IETF-wide last call. Not having seen a previous working group last call I assume that's what you wanted to do. In that case, you just go ahead and do it -- you don't need me or the secretariat and I certainly approve of the WG last call in any case. Ned From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 6 07:30:21 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07703 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:30:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA6CH2706724 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 04:17:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA6CH0806716 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 04:17:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07277; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:16:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200111061216.HAA07277@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 07:16:58 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Message Tracking Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking Author(s) : E. Allman, T. Hansen Filename : draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt Pages : 7 Date : 05-Nov-01 This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby a client may mark a message for future tracking. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011105132348.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011105132348.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 6 07:32:20 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07769 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA6CH7206733 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 04:17:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA6CH6806726 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 04:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07294; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 07:17:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200111061217.HAA07294@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 07:17:03 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Message Tracking Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : The Message/Tracking-Status MIME Extension Author(s) : E. Allman Filename : draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt Pages : 9 Date : 05-Nov-01 Message Tracking is expected to be used to determine the status of undelivered e-mail upon request. Tracking is used in conjunction with Delivery Status Notifications [RFC-DSN-SMTP] and Message Disposition Notifications [RFC-MDN]; generally, a message tracking request will be issued only when a DSN or MDN has not been received within a reasonable timeout period. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011105132405.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011105132405.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 6 14:13:42 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27971 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA6J4w003873 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (IDENT:root@rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA6J4u803867 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from kepler (kepler.esys.ca [198.161.92.108]) (authenticated) by rembrandt.esys.ca (8.11.0.Beta0/8.11.0.Beta0) with ESMTP id fA6J4vI07770 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:04:57 -0700 From: Steve Hole Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:04:39 -0700 To: Message Tracking Working Group Subject: Working group last call on protocol document set Message-ID: X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: At this time I would like to issue a working group last call on the collection of three protocol documents: draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt All comments should be delivered to the list. I would like to thanks our authors Eric Allman and Tony Hansen for their wonderful work in putting these documents together for us. If no comments are received within two weeks, I will recommend their progress to the IESG. Cheers. --- Steve Hole Chief Technical Officer - Electronic Billing and Payment Systems ACI Worldwide, Messaging Direct Mailto:Steve.Hole@MessagingDirect.com Phone: 780-424-4922 From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 6 16:06:20 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03357 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fA6KvRI09489 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:57:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA6KvO809479 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:57:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id fA6KvQrs027537 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:57:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id fA6KvCu3027532; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:57:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="WPJla7Cb6r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15336.20136.549535.146526@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:57:12 -0800 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Steve Hole Cc: Message Tracking Working Group Subject: Re: Working group last call on protocol document set In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --WPJla7Cb6r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: message body text Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit steve.hole> At this time I would like to issue a working group last call on steve.hole> the collection of three protocol documents: steve.hole> draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt We need a new revision of the -mtqp- document from Tony first as there are issues from Philip Hazel and myself which haven't been taken into account in the -03 version. I've attached them below. --WPJla7Cb6r Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="VYn9l6j2m/" This is a digest, 3 messages, MIME encapsulation. --VYn9l6j2m/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Gregory Neil Shapiro Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:47:34 -0700 Message-ID: <15211.46758.533886.606550@monkeyboy.gshapiro.net> 2. Basic Operation The second paragraph describes how to determine tracking host to contact. How about a host like this: gshapiro.net IN SRV mtqp tracking.gshapiro.net IN MX 10 smtp.gshapiro.net IN MX 20 smtp.sendmail.com In other words, a dedicated tracking server for gshapiro.net and two MX records. When an SMTP message is sent, smtp.gshapiro.net happens to be unavailable so the message goes to smtp.sendmail.com. If an MTQP client then tries to track the message, it will use tracking.gshapiro.net (due to the SRV record). However, tracking.gshapiro.net doesn't know about the message yet (still in smtp.sendmail.com's queue). The lookup fails. Also, it's not clear from the paragraph that if SRV records do not exist, do you only use the first MX returned or all of them in MX preference order? If I may suggest the following change: When an MTQP client wishes to make use of the message tracking service, it establishes a TCP connection with the server host. To find the server host, the MTQP client first does an MX lookup for the server host using DNS MX records, as specified in [RFC-DNS] and revised by [RFC-HOSTS]. If no MX records are found, the MTQP client then does an A record lookup for the server host. If MX records are found, for each MX record (in MX preference order -- lowest to highest), an SRV lookup on the MX host name using DNS SRV records, with a service name of "mtqp". (See the "Usage rules" section in [RFC-SRV] for details.) If a SRV host is found, the MTQP client uses that host for tracking. Otherwise, it uses the MX host name for tracking. Finally, the host either the SRV host (if found) or the MX host is contacted using MTQP. This process is repeated for each of the MX records until an MTQP lookup succeeds (i.e., tracking status is returned). With this new text, the DNS records might look something like: gshapiro.net IN MX 10 smtp.gshapiro.net IN MX 20 smtp.sendmail.com smtp.gshapiro.net IN A 10.254.153.10 smtp.sendmail.com IN A 192.168.10.43 IN SRV mtqp tracking.sendmail.com tracking.sendmail.com IN A 192.168.10.45 In which case, a message sent to gshapiro@gshapiro.net would be tracked by first contacting smtp.gshapiro.net with MTQP and if no tracking information is available at that host (or it can not be contacted), then continue by contacting tracking.sendmail.com with MTQP. An example, such as the one I have given should be added to the draft. --- 3. Initialization and Option Response Example 5 should probably use "VND." as Option2 and Option3 are not valid (only STARTTLS is). A suggested replacement: Example #5 (options available): S: +OK+/MTQP MTQP server ready S: starttls S: Vnd.vendor.Option2 with parameters S: Vnd.vendor.Option3 with a very long S: list of parameters S: . --- 10. IANA Considerations Vendor-specific options MUST be registered with IANA? I thought the whole point of vendor options was like that of 'X' ESMTP extensions: RFC 2821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol April 2001 2.2.2 Definition and Registration of Extensions In addition, any EHLO keyword value starting with an upper or lower case "X" refers to a local SMTP service extension used exclusively through bilateral agreement. Keywords beginning with "X" MUST NOT be used in a registered service extension. Conversely, keyword values presented in the EHLO response that do not begin with "X" MUST correspond to a standard, standards-track, or IESG-approved experimental SMTP service extension registered with IANA. A conforming server MUST NOT offer non-"X"-prefixed keyword values that are not described in a registered extension. If that is the case, then they should not be registered with IANA. Perhaps we want to steal some of the above text for this document. --- 12. Protocol Syntax Move opt-text up as it is used by comment-command first (before temp-response). The response-info ABNF is incorrect. The parens are not balanced. --- Spelling fixes: @@ -197 +197 @@ -parseable, case-insensitive response information giving more data about +parsable, case-insensitive response information giving more data about @@ -249 +249 @@ -Which option is picked is an adminstrative decision and is not further +Which option is picked is an administrative decision and is not further @@ -667 +667 @@ - System port number XXXX - TBA by IANA + System port number XXXX - TBD by IANA @@ -693 +693 @@ -begin with "vnd." MUST be registered with IANA on a Firt Come First +begin with "vnd." MUST be registered with IANA on a First Come First @@ -721 +721 @@ - Both the STMP client and server must check the result of the TLS + Both the SMTP client and server must check the result of the TLS @@ -725 +725 @@ -was achieved is made locally, is implementation-dependant, and is beyond +was achieved is made locally, is implementation-dependent, and is beyond @@ -825 +825 @@ -13. Acknowledgements +13. Acknowledgments @@ -925 +925 @@ -assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and dis- +assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and dis- @@ -930 +930 @@ -references to the Internet Society or other Internet organisations, +references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, --VYn9l6j2m/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Hansen Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 14:07:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3B6C39C9.89D5804C@att.com> See comments below. Tony Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > > 2. Basic Operation > > The second paragraph describes how to determine tracking host to contact. > How about a host like this: > > gshapiro.net IN SRV mtqp tracking.gshapiro.net > IN MX 10 smtp.gshapiro.net > IN MX 20 smtp.sendmail.com > > In other words, a dedicated tracking server for gshapiro.net and two MX > records. When an SMTP message is sent, smtp.gshapiro.net happens to be > unavailable so the message goes to smtp.sendmail.com. If an MTQP client > then tries to track the message, it will use tracking.gshapiro.net (due to > the SRV record). However, tracking.gshapiro.net doesn't know about the > message yet (still in smtp.sendmail.com's queue). The lookup fails. > > Also, it's not clear from the paragraph that if SRV records do not exist, > do you only use the first MX returned or all of them in MX preference > order? > > If I may suggest the following change: > > When an MTQP client wishes to make use of the message tracking > service, it establishes a TCP connection with the server host. To > find the server host, the MTQP client first does an MX lookup for the > server host using DNS MX records, as specified in [RFC-DNS] and > revised by [RFC-HOSTS]. If no MX records are found, the MTQP client > then does an A record lookup for the server host. If MX records are > found, for each MX record (in MX preference order -- lowest to > highest), an SRV lookup on the MX host name using DNS SRV records, > with a service name of "mtqp". (See the "Usage rules" section in > [RFC-SRV] for details.) If a SRV host is found, the MTQP client uses > that host for tracking. Otherwise, it uses the MX host name for > tracking. Finally, the host either the SRV host (if found) or the MX > host is contacted using MTQP. This process is repeated for each of > the MX records until an MTQP lookup succeeds (i.e., tracking status is > returned). > > With this new text, the DNS records might look something like: > > gshapiro.net IN MX 10 smtp.gshapiro.net > IN MX 20 smtp.sendmail.com > > smtp.gshapiro.net IN A 10.254.153.10 > > smtp.sendmail.com IN A 192.168.10.43 > IN SRV mtqp tracking.sendmail.com > > tracking.sendmail.com IN A 192.168.10.45 > > In which case, a message sent to gshapiro@gshapiro.net would be tracked by > first contacting smtp.gshapiro.net with MTQP and if no tracking information > is available at that host (or it can not be contacted), then continue by > contacting tracking.sendmail.com with MTQP. > > An example, such as the one I have given should be added to the draft. I don't know how common this usage of MX records is, but it is valid. I'm okay with this change. Anyone else? > --- > > 3. Initialization and Option Response > > Example 5 should probably use "VND." as Option2 and Option3 are not valid > (only STARTTLS is). A suggested replacement: > > Example #5 (options available): > S: +OK+/MTQP MTQP server ready > S: starttls > S: Vnd.vendor.Option2 with parameters > S: Vnd.vendor.Option3 with a very long > S: list of parameters > S: . sure > --- > > 10. IANA Considerations > > Vendor-specific options MUST be registered with IANA? I thought the whole > point of vendor options was like that of 'X' ESMTP extensions: > > RFC 2821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol April 2001 > 2.2.2 Definition and Registration of Extensions > > In addition, any EHLO keyword value starting with an upper or lower > case "X" refers to a local SMTP service extension used exclusively > through bilateral agreement. Keywords beginning with "X" MUST NOT be > used in a registered service extension. Conversely, keyword values > presented in the EHLO response that do not begin with "X" MUST > correspond to a standard, standards-track, or IESG-approved > experimental SMTP service extension registered with IANA. A > conforming server MUST NOT offer non-"X"-prefixed keyword values that > are not described in a registered extension. > > If that is the case, then they should not be registered with IANA. Perhaps > we want to steal some of the above text for this document. I meant to say that the vendor name must be registered, as is done with MIME content types. Another option is to go the java route and use a reversed domain name: vnd.com.example.option1 This avoids the IANA registration issue entirely, under the assumption that only the owners of a domain would use their domain. > --- > > 12. Protocol Syntax > > Move opt-text up as it is used by comment-command first (before > temp-response). > > The response-info ABNF is incorrect. The parens are not balanced. ok > --- > > Spelling fixes: > > @@ -197 +197 @@ > -parseable, case-insensitive response information giving more data about > +parsable, case-insensitive response information giving more data about > @@ -249 +249 @@ > -Which option is picked is an adminstrative decision and is not further > +Which option is picked is an administrative decision and is not further > @@ -667 +667 @@ > - System port number XXXX - TBA by IANA > + System port number XXXX - TBD by IANA > @@ -693 +693 @@ > -begin with "vnd." MUST be registered with IANA on a Firt Come First > +begin with "vnd." MUST be registered with IANA on a First Come First > @@ -721 +721 @@ > - Both the STMP client and server must check the result of the TLS > + Both the SMTP client and server must check the result of the TLS > @@ -725 +725 @@ > -was achieved is made locally, is implementation-dependant, and is beyond > +was achieved is made locally, is implementation-dependent, and is beyond > @@ -825 +825 @@ > -13. Acknowledgements > +13. Acknowledgments > @@ -925 +925 @@ > -assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and dis- > +assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and dis- > @@ -930 +930 @@ > -references to the Internet Society or other Internet organisations, > +references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, ok --VYn9l6j2m/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Philip Hazel Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org To: Subject: Late comments on the msgtrk documents Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 20:11:08 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Folks, I am coming very late to this working group, and I know how annoying it can be when someone piles in late with a zillion comments, so please ignore me if you feel I am out of line. I should also point out that I'm on record as not being very enthusiastic about any of the message tracking mechanisms, so these comments come from the point of view of a sceptic. (And as the author of Exim, I can see that at least one feature of the msgtrk system is close to "impossible" to implement.) Below are comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03 [SMTPEXT], draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03 [TRKSTAT], and draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03 [MTQP]. Regards, Philip -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on [SMTPEXT] Section 3, paragraph labelled (4): (a) This paragraph talks about the "MAIL FROM command". In fact, all other RFCs about SMTP call it the "MAIL command". This change is needed throughout the document. (b) The second sentence reads "In addition, the ENVID and ORCPT parameters (as defined in RFC 1891 sections 5.4 and 5.2 respectively) MUST be supported, with extensions as described below." This implies that both these parameters are for the MAIL command, but ORCPT is actually a parameter of the RCPT command. Also, I can't see any extensions for the ORCPT command in the rest of the document. Suggested rewording: In addition, the ENVID parameter of the MAIL command (as defined in RFC 1891 section 5.4) MUST be supported, with extensions as described below. The ORCPT parameter of the RCPT command (as defined in RFC 1891 section 5.2) MUST also be supported. Section 3, paragraph labelled (5): This paragraph is talking about the length of the MAIL command, and says "Note that a further extension of 614 characters for the OCRPT and ENVID parameters is required..." This can't be right, because ORCPT is not a parameter of MAIL. Section 4.1: The first sentence reads "Any sender wishing to track a message must...". I think it would be clearer to say "Any sender wishing to request the retention of data for subsequent tracking of a message must...". A few paragraphs down there is "B is stored in tracking databases of compliant MTAs..." I suggest a change to "compliant receiver MTAs" to contrast with the start of the paragraph, which covers the sender. Section 4.2: The last paragraph reads: Any resubmissions of this message into the message trans- mission system MUST assign a new ENVID. In this context, "resubmission" includes forwarding or resending a message from a user agent, but does not include MTA-level aliasing or forward- ing where the message does not leave and re-enter the message transmission system. What does this mean in the context of an MTA aliasing that turns one incoming address into two outgoing addresses, causing two different copies of the message to be sent to two different MTAs? Does each copy retain the ENVID? (This is probably answered by the following section, but perhaps some words here might help the reader the first time through, and emphasize the point about one-to-one redirection.) Section 4.3: The second and third paragraphs had me somewhat confused. I *think* I now know what is meant, but I may be wrong. If aliasing, forwarding, or other redirection of messages to a single recipient occurs, then the MTA SHOULD treat this as an ordinary hop-to-hop transfer and forward the MTRK=, ENVID=, and ORCPT= values; these values MUST NOT be modified. "redirection of messages to a single recipient" can be read in one of two ways: (a) A single envelope recipient (possibly one among many) is redirected to a new single recipient, and that copy of the message is what we are talking about. OR (b) A message contains only a single (incoming) envelope recipient, and this paragraph covers just that case. I think it must be (a) that is intended. Is this wording better? If aliasing, forwarding, or other redirection of a recipient occurs, and the result of the redirection is exactly one new recipient, the MTA SHOULD treat this as... [This begs the question of the very common case where somebody who is temporarily somewhere else sets up a .forward file that saves messages in their local mailbox, and also forwards them to a single forwarding address. Does this count as "one-to-one" redirection, or not? I suppose it has to be not.] The next paragraph reads thus: MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when relaying a message to multiple recipients. An MTA MAY designate one recipient in a multi-recipient alias as the "primary" recipient to which track- ing requests shall be forwarded; other addresses SHALL NOT receive tracking certifiers. MTAs MUST NOT forward MTRK certi- fiers when doing mailing list expansion. Does "relaying a message to multiple recipients" mean that the message envelope contains more than one recipient, and the MTA is passing it on, or does it mean that a single envelope recipient is expanded to more than one address, and these are passed on? I think the latter is intended, in which case perhaps some wording that mirrors the previous paragraph might be clearer: MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when a recipient is aliased, forwarded, or otherwise redirected and the redirection results in more than one new recipient. However, an MTA MAY designate one of the new recipients as the "primary" recipient... [My case of "save in mailbox and forward" mentioned above is probably an example of where the forward address should be "primary", I suppose.] Section 5.2: (Minor comment.) I felt it might be helpful to add a final paragraph along these lines: Therefore, implementors are encouraged to provide mechanisms by which site administrators can choose between these alternatives. Section 6: [RFC_SMTP] should refer to 2821, not 821 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on [TRKSTAT] References to RFC 822 should refer to 2822 instead. Section 3.3.2 REQUIRES the final-recipient field. I know that many administrators do not want to expose the results of redirection or other address rewriting. I suspect, therefore, that this field will be of very little use in practice. Section 3.3.5 (Remote-MTA field): What if several MTAs have been tried, and the message is delayed because all are unreachable? Should this field be omitted, or should one MTA be chosen at random? Section 3.3.7 (Will-Retry-Until field) is hard for at least one MTA (Exim) to implement (because of the way its retrying is designed). By making this field REQUIRED, this specification assumes a certain kind of retry implementation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on [MTQP] I think we fixed this at the mini-BOF, but all references to "A records" should be to "address records" so as to include AAAA (or A6 if that refuses to die). Section 2.4 The last sentence reads "An MTQP server MAY limit the number of commands or total connection time to prevent denial of service attacks." It may be worth pointing out that severely limiting the number of *unrecognized* commands defends against attacks that are implemented by subverting unsuspecting programs to send data to arbitrary ports. In such cases, the input usually contains a number of unrecognized commands. There's a specific new attack of this form which can be used against SMTP - it's not yet published, I think, which is why I'm being a bit vague here. The potential for damage is much greater with SMTP than with MTRK, of course. Section 7 (QUIT command): This says "The client may close the session from its end immediately after issuing this command." This was the subject of some heated debate somewhere (can't remember exactly where) in the case of SMTP. The conclusion was, if I recall correctly, that this was a safe thing to do on a Unix system, because of the way that TCP/IP stacks work in Unix. On some other systems, it was alleged, doing this would crash the system, because closing the session wipes out all knowledge of the call, and the incoming response to QUIT on a now-non-existent connection, causes trouble. (Unix, of course, keeps the session hanging around for a bit, in CLOSE_WAIT state.) I have never used Windows or MacOS (believe it or not), let alone programmed for either of them, so I don't know the details of this. However, it seems to me that it might be sensible to put some kind of a warning after that sentence, such as "on operating systems where this does not cause problems". The alternative is to remove the sentence altogether. Section 9: The word "cookie" appears without any previous definition. Section 11: Typo in 4th paragraph: for "dependant" read "dependent". Section 14: References to RFCs 821 and 822 should now be to 2821 and 2822. --------------------------------------------------------------------- --VYn9l6j2m/-- --WPJla7Cb6r-- From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 21 18:02:36 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12564 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:02:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fALMsI528302 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fALMsH828292 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:54:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id fALMsEZ21592 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:54:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from att.com ([135.197.90.103]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20011121225413099001qjd2e> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:54:13 +0000 Message-ID: <3BFC306C.578CEB56@att.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:53:32 -0500 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt and draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry for my hiatus. I've sent in updates to the mtqp and model documents. They can be found here in the meantime: http://www.geocities.com/tonylhansen/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt http://www.geocities.com/tonylhansen/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt Tony Hansen tony@att.com From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 21 19:15:57 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14178 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 19:15:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fAM088802377 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:08:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (IDENT:root@rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAM086802373 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:08:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from kepler (h24-82-48-160.ed.shawcable.net [24.82.48.160]) (authenticated) by rembrandt.esys.ca (8.11.0.Beta0/8.11.0.Beta0) with ESMTP id fAM088F28883 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:08:08 -0700 From: Steve Hole Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:07:39 -0700 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Reissue: last call on all working group protocol documents Message-ID: X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Now that Tony has submitted his update, I would like to reissue the WG last call on the set of protocol documents: draft-msgtrk-smptext-03.txt draft-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt draft-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt Please forward all comments to the list and the authors. Thanks again to our authors Tony Hansen and Eric Allman for outstanding work. Cheers. --- Steve Hole Chief Technical Officer - Electronic Billing and Payment Systems ACI Worldwide, Messaging Direct Mailto:Steve.Hole@MessagingDirect.com Phone: 780-424-4922 From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 21 21:04:56 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16251 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fAM1trN08741 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAM1tp808737 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.2.Beta1/8.12.2.Beta1) with ESMTP id fAM1tqBQ069464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.2.Beta1/8.12.2.Beta1/Submit) id fAM1tpCb069461; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:55:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15356.23335.369393.214240@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:55:51 -0800 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Tony Hansen Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt and draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt In-Reply-To: <3BFC306C.578CEB56@att.com> References: <3BFC306C.578CEB56@att.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit tony> http://www.geocities.com/tonylhansen/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt Here are my comments: 1. Replace 'A record' with 'address record': -record pointing at the server host, and if not, will have an A record. +record pointing at the server host, and if not, will have an address record. 2. Spelling errors: -Which option is picked is an adminstrative decision and is not further +Which option is picked is an administrative decision and is not further - Example #8 Message Delayed and a DotStuffed Header: + Example #8 Message Delayed and a Dot-Stuffed Header: - If TLS is not suported, then a response code of "/unsupported" + If TLS is not supported, then a response code of "/unsupported" -reponse code of "/unavailable" SHOULD be used. If a TLS session is +response code of "/unavailable" SHOULD be used. If a TLS session is 3. The firewall examples showing relaying to another host and then that host's responses seem to show the wrong Remote-MTA hostname but I could be wrong. Somebody should double chek my work: @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ S: Final-Recipient: rfc822; user1@example1.com S: Action: relayed S: Status: 2.1.9 - S: Remote-MTA: dns; example2.com + S: Remote-MTA: dns; smtp.example3.com S: Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:15:03 -0500 S: S: --%%%% @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ S: Final-Recipient: rfc822; user1@example1.com S: Action: relayed S: Status: 2.1.9 - S: Remote-MTA: dns; example2.com + S: Remote-MTA: dns; smtp.example3.com S: Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:15:03 -0500 S: 4. The MTQP option registration for STARTTLS is improperly formatted: One MTQP option is defined in this document: - option identifier: STARTTLS option parameters: none added commands: - STARTTLS standard commands affected: none specification reference: - RFC TBD discussion: see RFC TBD + option identifier: STARTTLS + option parameters: none + added commands: STARTTLS + standard commands affected: none + specification reference: RFC TBD + discussion: see RFC TBD From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 21 21:05:59 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16286 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fAM1xus08903 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:59:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAM1xt808899 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.2.Beta1/8.12.2.Beta1) with ESMTP id fAM1xtBQ069526 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:59:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.2.Beta1/8.12.2.Beta1/Submit) id fAM1xtFL069523; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:59:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15356.23579.549838.483692@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:59:55 -0800 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Tony Hansen Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt and draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt In-Reply-To: <3BFC306C.578CEB56@att.com> References: <3BFC306C.578CEB56@att.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit tony> http://www.geocities.com/tonylhansen/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt And here are some spelling corrections for the model document: - Status Notificatons (DSNs). (Intermediate MTA's may also + Status Notifications (DSNs). (Intermediate MTA's may also -assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and dis- +assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and dis- -references to the Internet Society or other Internet organisations, +references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 21 23:31:38 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21625 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fAM4Nr512399 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:23:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from almso1.proxy.att.com (almso1.att.com [192.128.167.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAM4Np812395 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by almso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id fAM4NmD19334 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:23:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from att.com ([135.210.75.11]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20011122042348099001qjiie> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Thu, 22 Nov 2001 04:23:48 +0000 Message-ID: <3BFC7DAB.D126DB41@att.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:23:07 -0500 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro CC: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt and draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt References: <3BFC306C.578CEB56@att.com> <15356.23335.369393.214240@horsey.gshapiro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit always some nits. :-) thanks Greg! more below. Tony Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > > tony> http://www.geocities.com/tonylhansen/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt > > Here are my comments: > > 1. Replace 'A record' with 'address record': > > -record pointing at the server host, and if not, will have an A record. > +record pointing at the server host, and if not, will have an address record. thought I had gotten all of those. rats. > 2. Spelling errors: > ... > > 3. The firewall examples showing relaying to another host and then that > host's responses seem to show the wrong Remote-MTA hostname but I could > be wrong. Somebody should double chek my work: > > @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ > S: Final-Recipient: rfc822; user1@example1.com > S: Action: relayed > S: Status: 2.1.9 > - S: Remote-MTA: dns; example2.com > + S: Remote-MTA: dns; smtp.example3.com > S: Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:15:03 -0500 > S: > S: --%%%% > @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ > S: Final-Recipient: rfc822; user1@example1.com > S: Action: relayed > S: Status: 2.1.9 > - S: Remote-MTA: dns; example2.com > + S: Remote-MTA: dns; smtp.example3.com > S: Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:15:03 -0500 > S: I think you're right. > 4. The MTQP option registration for STARTTLS is improperly formatted: > > One MTQP option is defined in this document: > - option identifier: STARTTLS option parameters: none added commands: > - STARTTLS standard commands affected: none specification reference: > - RFC TBD discussion: see RFC TBD > + option identifier: STARTTLS > + option parameters: none > + added commands: STARTTLS > + standard commands affected: none > + specification reference: RFC TBD > + discussion: see RFC TBD left off the ".nf/.fi" pair, for those of you who speak *roff. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 30 06:11:13 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03663 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fAUB1r112169 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:01:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAUB1p812165 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02758; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:01:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200111301101.GAA02758@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:01:46 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Message Tracking Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Message Tracking Query Protocol Author(s) : T. Hansen Filename : draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt Pages : 19 Date : 29-Nov-01 Customers buying enterprise message systems often ask: Can I track the messages? Message tracking is the ability to find out the path that a particular message has taken through a messaging system and the current routing status of that message. This document describes the Message Tracking Query Protocol that is used in conjunction with exten- sions to the ESMTP protocol to provide a complete message tracking solu- tion for the Internet. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011129144546.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011129144546.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 30 06:12:46 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03719 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:12:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fAUB1l912163 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:01:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAUB1k812159 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:01:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA02745; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:01:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200111301101.GAA02745@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:01:41 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Message Tracking Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Message Tracking Model and Requirements Author(s) : T. Hansen Filename : draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt Pages : 10 Date : 29-Nov-01 Customers buying enterprise message systems often ask: Can I track the messages? Message tracking is the ability to find out the path that a particular message has taken through a messaging system and the current routing status of that message. This document provides a model of message tracking that can be used for understanding the Internet-wide message infrastructure and to further enhance those capabilities to include message tracking, as well as requirements for proposed message tracking solutions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011129144533.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20011129144533.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart--