From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Sat Aug 4 13:21:20 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 NAA29267 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f74HJRG24377 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (x81vcf@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f74HJQs24373 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeyboy.gshapiro.net (root@host217-33-136-128.ietf.ignite.net [217.33.136.128] (may be forged)) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f74HJFYV037481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by monkeyboy.gshapiro.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f748lZr08334; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:47:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15211.46758.533886.606550@monkeyboy.gshapiro.net> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:47:34 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under 21.5 (beta1) "anise" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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, From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Sat Aug 4 13:22:20 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 NAA29281 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f74HJPr24371 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (635cz2@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f74HJNs24367 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeyboy.gshapiro.net (root@host217-33-136-128.ietf.ignite.net [217.33.136.128] (may be forged)) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f74HJFYT037481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by monkeyboy.gshapiro.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f7493L208446; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:03:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15211.47705.330535.122610@monkeyboy.gshapiro.net> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:03:21 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-02.txt X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under 21.5 (beta1) "anise" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 3.3.3. Action field Why are delivered and expanded 'SHOULD NOT' instead of 'MUST NOT'? From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Sat Aug 4 14:08:14 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 OAA29678 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f74I7wK24918 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from almso1.proxy.att.com (almso1.att.com [192.128.167.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f74I7us24914 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by almso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f74I7qp28574 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:07:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.com ([135.210.112.31]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20010804180749099004n42ve> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:07:49 +0000 Message-ID: <3B6C39C9.89D5804C@att.com> Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 14:07:05 -0400 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt References: <15211.46758.533886.606550@monkeyboy.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 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 From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 6 04:14:12 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 EAA19123 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 04:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f7688Ds14458 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from knecht.Neophilic.COM (knecht.sendmail.org [209.31.233.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f7688Cs14454 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (host217-33-136-79.ietf.ignite.net [217.33.136.79]) by knecht.Neophilic.COM (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta17) with ESMTP id f76881fq080785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (localhost.sendmail.org [127.0.0.1]) by jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (8.11.1.Alpha0/8.11.1.Alpha0) with ESMTP id f7686gk14408; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200108060806.f7686gk14408@jean-baptiste.sendmail.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.2 06/08/2000 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-02.txt In-reply-to: Mail from Gregory Neil Shapiro dated Sat, 04 Aug 2001 02:03:21 PDT <15211.47705.330535.122610@monkeyboy.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 01:06:42 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: I don't recall -- I think this was the result of one of those WG conversations. Personally, I think MUST NOT is better wording here. Any objections? eric ============= In Reply To: =========================================== : From: Gregory Neil Shapiro : Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-02.txt : Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:03:21 -0700 : : 3.3.3. Action field : : Why are delivered and expanded 'SHOULD NOT' instead of 'MUST NOT'? From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 6 09:37:25 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 JAA23127 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f76DXYm02281 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kcmso1.proxy.att.com (kcmso1.att.com [192.128.133.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f76DXWN02277 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 06:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by kcmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f76DXRD25877 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.com ([135.210.9.116]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20010806133326099004n4qpe> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:33:26 +0000 Message-ID: <3B6E9C77.F6C094AB@att.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:32:39 -0400 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt References: <15211.46758.533886.606550@monkeyboy.gshapiro.net> <3B6C39C9.89D5804C@att.com> 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 At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards the reversed domain name solution. Tony Tony Hansen wrote: > Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > > > --- > > > > 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. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 6 11:18:36 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 LAA25304 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f76F6M407165 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atg.aciworldwide.com (atg.aciworldwide.com [207.167.22.33]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f76F6KN07161 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atg.aciworldwide.com (atg.aciworldwide.com [207.167.22.33]) by atg.aciworldwide.com (8.12.0.Beta14/8.12.0.Beta14) with ESMTP id f76F6FpH054395; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:06:15 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200108061506.f76F6FpH054395@atg.aciworldwide.com> Organization: ACI Worldwide - Advanced Technology Group X-URL: http://www.aciworldwide.com/ To: Tony Hansen cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt In-Reply-To: Message from Tony Hansen of "Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:32:39 EDT." <3B6E9C77.F6C094AB@att.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:06:15 -0600 From: Lyndon Nerenberg Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: > At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards > the reversed domain name solution. Domain names aren't stickky enough for this. We (Esys, no Simeon, no Execmail. Wait, make that Messagingdirect, er I _really_ meant ACI) are ample proof of this :-( Would we need to (IANA) register each item, or just reserve a vendor prefix in the namespace? --lyndon From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 6 14:20:57 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 OAA28985 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f76I2MN14947 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f76I2KN14941 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f76I2Dg15850 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.com ([135.210.40.85]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20010806180212099004n4dee> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:02:12 +0000 Message-ID: <3B6EDB77.B6403C2E@att.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 14:01:27 -0400 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lyndon Nerenberg , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt References: <200108061506.f76F6FpH054395@atg.aciworldwide.com> <3B6ED9F3.308626DD@att.com> 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 I also noticed these RFCs: 2806 telephone call URL vnd.company.option 2848 PINT vnd.acme.com 3028 Sieve vnd.vendor.product Tony Tony Hansen wrote: > > I was trying to emulate MIME vendor content-types, where this hasn't > been a problem. After a company is renamed, it could continue to use the > existing name, or register another name -- it's their choice. > > The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are > registered: > > Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading > facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the > registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer > (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the > producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product > designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). > > I would just expect the vendor prefix in the namespace to be registered. > It would be even better if we could bounce off another, existing > registry. > > IANA's vendor content-types aren't all that regular, because of the > muddying of the namespace waters (letting media names be at the 2nd > level, as in vnd.mudpie vs. vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). So it would > be difficult to bounce off that registry. That's why dns names would be > better. > > How quickly do dns names get reused after a company gets renamed? When a > company renames itself, how quickly do they usually relinquish their old > domain names, and how quickly after that do they get picked up by other > companies? > > Another alternative would be to create a vendor namespace registry > that's divorced from mtqp, and bounce off of that registry. How useful > would that be? > > Tony > > Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > > > > At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards > > > the reversed domain name solution. > > > > Domain names aren't stickky enough for this. We (Esys, no Simeon, > > no Execmail. Wait, make that Messagingdirect, er I _really_ meant > > ACI) are ample proof of this :-( > > > > Would we need to (IANA) register each item, or just reserve a vendor prefix > > in the namespace? > > > > --lyndon From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 6 14:24:05 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 OAA29050 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f76HtrF14850 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kcmso1.proxy.att.com (kcmso1.att.com [192.128.133.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f76HtpN14846 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by kcmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f76HtkD23629 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.com ([135.210.40.85]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20010806175545099004n4cre> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:55:45 +0000 Message-ID: <3B6ED9F3.308626DD@att.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 13:54:59 -0400 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lyndon Nerenberg CC: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt References: <200108061506.f76F6FpH054395@atg.aciworldwide.com> 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 I was trying to emulate MIME vendor content-types, where this hasn't been a problem. After a company is renamed, it could continue to use the existing name, or register another name -- it's their choice. The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are registered: Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). I would just expect the vendor prefix in the namespace to be registered. It would be even better if we could bounce off another, existing registry. IANA's vendor content-types aren't all that regular, because of the muddying of the namespace waters (letting media names be at the 2nd level, as in vnd.mudpie vs. vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). So it would be difficult to bounce off that registry. That's why dns names would be better. How quickly do dns names get reused after a company gets renamed? When a company renames itself, how quickly do they usually relinquish their old domain names, and how quickly after that do they get picked up by other companies? Another alternative would be to create a vendor namespace registry that's divorced from mtqp, and bounce off of that registry. How useful would that be? Tony Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > > At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards > > the reversed domain name solution. > > Domain names aren't stickky enough for this. We (Esys, no Simeon, > no Execmail. Wait, make that Messagingdirect, er I _really_ meant > ACI) are ample proof of this :-( > > Would we need to (IANA) register each item, or just reserve a vendor prefix > in the namespace? > > --lyndon From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 7 03:59:58 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 DAA27324 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f777tjv14690 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f777tiN14684 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01K6TYLUAV6800257E@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-msgtrk@imc.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:45:10 -0700 (PDT) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 06 Aug 2001 13:54:59 -0400" <3B6ED9F3.308626DD@att.com> To: Tony Hansen Cc: Lyndon Nerenberg , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Message-id: <01K6U10TGVM600257E@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200108061506.f76F6FpH054395@atg.aciworldwide.com> Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > I was trying to emulate MIME vendor content-types, where this hasn't > been a problem. After a company is renamed, it could continue to use the > existing name, or register another name -- it's their choice. > The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are > registered: > Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading > facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the > registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer > (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the > producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product > designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). Note, however, that this registers vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures, not vnd.bigcompany or bigcompany. So it isn't strictly correct to say that company prefixes are registered. The media type reviewer (currently me) does check for inappropriate producer name use, however, this isn't as much of check as you might think since due to inaction on the part of various producers we have had little choice but to allow other people to register their types for them. (The process does give the actual producer the right to claim the registration later if they want to.) The check ends up being along the lines of "is this really a media type associated with this producer". > I would just expect the vendor prefix in the namespace to be registered. > It would be even better if we could bounce off another, existing > registry. This is treading dangerously close to the domain name situation. We don't want to go there. > IANA's vendor content-types aren't all that regular, because of the > muddying of the namespace waters (letting media names be at the 2nd > level, as in vnd.mudpie vs. vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). So it would > be difficult to bounce off that registry. That's why dns names would be > better. Piggybacking off of domain names could work. It is certainly better than having a separate registry. > How quickly do dns names get reused after a company gets renamed? When a > company renames itself, how quickly do they usually relinquish their old > domain names, and how quickly after that do they get picked up by other > companies? There's a huge amount of variability in all this in practice. > Another alternative would be to create a vendor namespace registry > that's divorced from mtqp, and bounce off of that registry. How useful > would that be? Bad Idea IMO. Ned From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 7 05:25:15 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 FAA28508 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f779D2R22312 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f779D0N22307 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f779CsO15005 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:12:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.com ([135.76.80.177]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20010807091252099004n46ce> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:12:52 +0000 Message-ID: <3B6FB0E4.C0F87321@att.com> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 05:12:04 -0400 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt References: <200108061506.f76F6FpH054395@atg.aciworldwide.com> <01K6U10TGVM600257E@mauve.mrochek.com> 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 Ned, care to make a specific recommendation? I see these options: o punt -- don't specify a registry at all. This is the same thing that RFCs 2806 (tel URL), 2848 (PINT) and 3028 (sieve) do. They all specify the same type of vendor trees, but do NOT specify any registry for the list. o go with reverse domain names o have IANA do a generic registry of vendor names, usable by mtqp, 2806, 2848, 3028, future RFCs, etc. o have IANA do a special registry for mtqp vendor options If I don't hear some specific recommendations, I plan on going with the punt option. Tony ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: > > > I was trying to emulate MIME vendor content-types, where this hasn't > > been a problem. After a company is renamed, it could continue to use the > > existing name, or register another name -- it's their choice. > > > The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are > > registered: > > > Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading > > facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the > > registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer > > (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the > > producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product > > designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). > > Note, however, that this registers vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures, not > vnd.bigcompany or bigcompany. So it isn't strictly correct to say that company > prefixes are registered. > > The media type reviewer (currently me) does check for inappropriate producer > name use, however, this isn't as much of check as you might think since due to > inaction on the part of various producers we have had little choice but to > allow other people to register their types for them. (The process does give the > actual producer the right to claim the registration later if they want to.) The > check ends up being along the lines of "is this really a media type associated > with this producer". > > > I would just expect the vendor prefix in the namespace to be registered. > > It would be even better if we could bounce off another, existing > > registry. > > This is treading dangerously close to the domain name situation. We don't want > to go there. > > > IANA's vendor content-types aren't all that regular, because of the > > muddying of the namespace waters (letting media names be at the 2nd > > level, as in vnd.mudpie vs. vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). So it would > > be difficult to bounce off that registry. That's why dns names would be > > better. > > Piggybacking off of domain names could work. It is certainly better than having > a separate registry. > > > How quickly do dns names get reused after a company gets renamed? When a > > company renames itself, how quickly do they usually relinquish their old > > domain names, and how quickly after that do they get picked up by other > > companies? > > There's a huge amount of variability in all this in practice. > > > Another alternative would be to create a vendor namespace registry > > that's divorced from mtqp, and bounce off of that registry. How useful > > would that be? > > Bad Idea IMO. > > Ned From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 7 06:04:38 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 GAA29049 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 06:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f77A2c324111 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f77A2bN24103 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01K6U5DYEKPS0025MW@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-msgtrk@imc.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 03:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 03:01:27 -0700 (PDT) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 07 Aug 2001 05:12:04 -0400" <3B6FB0E4.C0F87321@att.com> To: Tony Hansen Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Message-id: <01K6U5G5TDNQ0025MW@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200108061506.f76F6FpH054395@atg.aciworldwide.com> <01K6U10TGVM600257E@mauve.mrochek.com> Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > Ned, care to make a specific recommendation? > I see these options: > o punt -- don't specify a registry at all. This is the same > thing that RFCs 2806 (tel URL), 2848 (PINT) and 3028 (sieve) > do. They all specify the same type of vendor trees, but do NOT > specify any registry for the list. > o go with reverse domain names I guess I slightly prefer punting, but either one of these seems fine to me. Ned From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 7 08:36:45 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 IAA02280 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f77CXV001410 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from knecht.Neophilic.COM (knecht.sendmail.org [209.31.233.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f77CXUN01406 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (host217-33-136-79.ietf.ignite.net [217.33.136.79]) by knecht.Neophilic.COM (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta17) with ESMTP id f77CXJfq089883 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (localhost.sendmail.org [127.0.0.1]) by jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (8.11.1.Alpha0/8.11.1.Alpha0) with ESMTP id f77CWEk18209; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200108071232.f77CWEk18209@jean-baptiste.sendmail.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.2 06/08/2000 To: Lyndon Nerenberg From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: Tony Hansen , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt In-reply-to: Mail from Lyndon Nerenberg dated Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:06:15 MDT <200108061506.f76F6FpH054395@atg.aciworldwide.com> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 05:32:13 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This doesn't look like a strong enough argument to punt this idea, at least to me. For example, suppose that several incarnations ago you had a vendor extension -- let's call it vnd.esys.XXX The "esys" part is registered with IANA if we choose the "register" option, or is just grabbed by you if we choose the "punt" option. In any case, once you've distributed software that uses this vnd tag, you're pretty much locked in to maintaining it -- you can't really ask client software to look for vnd.esys, vnd.simeon, vnd.execmail, vnd.messagingdirect, and vnd.aci -- treating them all as aliases. By the way, I notice that you still have esys.ca registered. It seems that if a vendor has software that uses an extension of this type, it isn't all that hard for them to maintain the old domain name in order to keep the namespace registered, just as you have. I'm leaning toward reversed domain names rather than register or punt. Register seems like it's an unneeded extra level of work, and why punt if we can come up with a reasonable way to do this now? Of course, one advantage of registration is that these don't arbitrarily expire -- so if a company (for example) goes out of business but their software is still deployed, the namespace isn't subject to re-use. eric ============= In Reply To: =========================================== : From: Lyndon Nerenberg : Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt : Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:06:15 -0600 : : > At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards : > the reversed domain name solution. : : Domain names aren't stickky enough for this. We (Esys, no Simeon, : no Execmail. Wait, make that Messagingdirect, er I _really_ meant : ACI) are ample proof of this :-( : : Would we need to (IANA) register each item, or just reserve a vendor prefix : in the namespace? : : --lyndon From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 7 08:39:32 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 IAA02334 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f77Cb8U01503 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from knecht.Neophilic.COM (knecht.sendmail.org [209.31.233.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f77Cb7N01499 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (host217-33-136-79.ietf.ignite.net [217.33.136.79]) by knecht.Neophilic.COM (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta17) with ESMTP id f77Cavfq089917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (localhost.sendmail.org [127.0.0.1]) by jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (8.11.1.Alpha0/8.11.1.Alpha0) with ESMTP id f77CZnk18219; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200108071235.f77CZnk18219@jean-baptiste.sendmail.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.2 06/08/2000 To: ned.freed@mrochek.com From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: Tony Hansen , Lyndon Nerenberg , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt In-reply-to: Mail from ned.freed@mrochek.com dated Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:45:10 PDT <01K6U10TGVM600257E@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 05:35:49 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: : From: ned.freed@mrochek.com : > The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are : > registered: : : > Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading : > facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the : > registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer : > (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the : > producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product : > designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). : : Note, however, that this registers vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures, not : vnd.bigcompany or bigcompany. So it isn't strictly correct to say that company : prefixes are registered. Ned, I read this differently -- "IANA-approved designation" modifies "producer's name" -- which is "then followed" by a non-IANA-approved media type or product designation. Am I totally off? eric From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 7 10:15:00 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 KAA04521 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f77E3Q003342 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from knecht.Neophilic.COM (knecht.sendmail.org [209.31.233.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f77E3NN03338 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (host217-33-136-79.ietf.ignite.net [217.33.136.79]) by knecht.Neophilic.COM (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta17) with ESMTP id f77E3Ffq090414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (localhost.sendmail.org [127.0.0.1]) by jean-baptiste.sendmail.org (8.11.1.Alpha0/8.11.1.Alpha0) with ESMTP id f77E2Ck18676 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200108071402.f77E2Ck18676@jean-baptiste.sendmail.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.2 06/08/2000 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric Subject: new msgtrk drafts (draft-ietf-msgtrk-{smtpext,trkstat}-03.txt) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed ; boundary="==_Exmh_-10525838480" Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:02:12 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multipart MIME message. --==_Exmh_-10525838480 Content-Type: text/plain These are the output of our mini-bof yesterday. Comments appreciated. eric --==_Exmh_-10525838480 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 August 7, 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 dis- tribute 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 August 7, 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 mecha- nisms 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 ser- vice extension mechanism described in [RFC-ESMTP]. The following service extension is hereby defined: (1) The name of the SMTP service extension is "Message Track- ing". (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 FROM command. 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. (5) The maximum length of a MAIL FROM command line is increased by 40 characters by the possible addition of the MTRK key- word and value. Note that a further extension of 614 char- acters for the ORCPT and ENVID parameters is required by [RFC-DSN-EXT]. (6) No SMTP verbs are defined by this extension. Allman & Hansen [Page 2] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension August 7, 2001 4. The Extended MAIL FROM Command The extended MAIL FROM 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 FROM command is identical to the MAIL FROM 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 track a 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 ran- dom 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 FROM command: mtrk-parameter = "MTRK=" mtrk-certifier [ ":" mtrk-timeout ] mtrk-certifier = base64 ; authenticator mtrk-timeout = 1*9digit ; seconds until timeout A, together with the name of the submission agent host actually used (that is, after any MX expansion), 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 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. Allman & Hansen [Page 3] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension August 7, 2001 If the message is relayed to another compliant SMTP server, the MTA acting as the client SHOULD pass an mtrk-timeout field equal to the remaining life of that message tracking informa- tion. 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 generat- ing this ENVID, and local-envid to an identifier that is never re-used by that host. 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. 4.3. Forwarding Tracking Certifiers MTAs SHOULD forward unexpired tracking certifiers to com- pliant mailers as the mail is transferred during regular hop-to- hop transfers. If the "downstream" MTA is not MTRK-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 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. MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when relaying a message to multiple recipients. An MTA MAY designate one recipient in a Allman & Hansen [Page 4] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension August 7, 2001 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. 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 pre- dict 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 deliv- ery to an alias as final delivery in order to separate roles from individuals. For example, sites implementing ``postmas- ter'' 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 informa- tion for an alias is important, such as when the alias points to the user's preferred public address. 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. [RFC-ABNF] Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syn- tax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997. [RFC-DELIVERYBY] D. Newman, ``Deliver By SMTP Service Extension.'' RFC 2852. Allman & Hansen [Page 5] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension August 7, 2001 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 Notifi- cations.'' 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. Novem- ber 1995. [RFC-KEYWORDS] S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Require- ment Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997. [RFC-MDN] R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposi- tion Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998. [RFC-MIME] N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bod- ies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996. [RFC-MSGFMT] D. Crocker, ``Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages.'' RFC 822. August 1982. [RFC-RANDOM] D. Eastlake, S. Crocker, and J. Schiller, ``Randomness Recom- mendations 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 Com- merce. May 1994. DRAFT. [RFC-SMTP] J. Postel, ``Simple Mail Transport Protocol.'' RFC 821. Allman & Hansen [Page 6] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension August 7, 2001 August 1982. 7. Authors' Addresses Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. 6425 Christie, 4th Floor Emeryville, CA 94608 U.S.A. E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Fax: +1 510 594 5411 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_-10525838480 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 August 7, 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 dis- tribute 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 sta- tus of undelivered e-mail upon request. Tracking is used in con- junction with Delivery Status Notifications [RFC-DSN-SMTP] and Mes- sage 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 August 7, 2001 It is to be issued upon a request as described in ``Message Track- ing 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" mecha- nism. 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 (Ter- minology), 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 refer- ence. 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 type "message/tracking-status" as described herein. 3.1. The message/tracking-status content-type The message/tracking-status content-type is defined as fol- lows: Allman [Page 2] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status August 7, 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" for- matted to according to the ABNF of RFC 822 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. For- mally, 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 identi- cal 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 informa- tion 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 August 7, 2001 3.2.1. The Original-Envelope-Id field The optional 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 fol- lows: 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 optional 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 sec- tion 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 August 7, 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 indi- cate that the message has been read. No further information is available; in particular, the tracking agent MUST NOT attempt further "down- stream" 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 MUST NOT attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. relayed The message has been delivered into an environ- ment 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. opaque The message may or may not have been seen by this system. No further information is avail- able 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 August 7, 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 mes- sage has been relayed to a system that does not speak this protocol; no further information can be pro- vided. 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 Ref- erence 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 is REQUIRED. 3.4. Extension fields Future extension fields may be defined as defined in sec- tion 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 August 7, 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 mes- sages but does not wish to divulge the address to which the mes- sages 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 for- warding 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 dis- abling further message tracking requests. (b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a "deliv- ered" tracking status, re-sending the message to the confi- dential 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. 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. [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT] E. Allman, ``SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking.'' draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt. December 2000. Allman [Page 7] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status August 7, 2001 [RFC-ABNF] Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syn- tax 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 Notifi- cations.'' 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. Novem- ber 1995. [RFC-HOSTREQ] R. Braden (ed.), ``Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Applica- tion and Support.'' STD 3, RFC 1123. October 1989. [RFC-KEYWORDS] S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Require- ment Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997. [RFC-LMTP] J. Myers, ``Local Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2033. Octo- ber 1996. [RFC-MDN] R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposi- tion Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998. [RFC-MIME] N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bod- ies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996. [RFC-MSGFMT] D. Crocker, ``Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages.'' RFC 822. August 1982. [RFC-RELATED] E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC 2387. August 1998. Allman [Page 8] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status August 7, 2001 6. Author's Address Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. 6425 Christie, 4th Floor Emeryville, CA 94608 U.S.A. E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Fax: +1 510 594 5411 Allman [Page 9] --==_Exmh_-10525838480-- From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 7 11:43:42 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 LAA06643 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f77FZpq20188 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f77FZnN20179 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-3.0) with ESMTP id f77FZiO17009 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.com ([135.76.80.53]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20010807153542099004n4lce> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:35:43 +0000 Message-ID: <3B700A9C.F1BE37A0@att.com> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 11:34:52 -0400 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt References: <200108071235.f77CZnk18219@jean-baptiste.sendmail.org> 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 From what I remember in the MIME discussions while working on vnd., Eric's interpretation was the intent. You were supposed to be able to register vnd.bigcompany.* as well as vnd.bigcompany.xyz and vnd.bigcompany.abc. However, Ned's interpretation appears to be what was actually implemented. If you look in the IANA registry, you'll find things like vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures registered, rather than vnd.bigcompany.* or just vnd.bigcompany. Tony Eric Allman wrote: > > : From: ned.freed@mrochek.com > : > The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are > : > registered: > : > : > Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading > : > facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the > : > registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer > : > (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the > : > producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product > : > designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). > : > : Note, however, that this registers vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures, not > : vnd.bigcompany or bigcompany. So it isn't strictly correct to say that company > : prefixes are registered. > > Ned, I read this differently -- "IANA-approved designation" modifies > "producer's name" -- which is "then followed" by a non-IANA-approved > media type or product designation. Am I totally off? > > eric From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Aug 10 05:11:28 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 FAA01724 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 05:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f7A96Ok05079 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f7A96MN05071 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01K6Y8WMBESG0025MW@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-msgtrk@imc.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:54:18 -0700 (PDT) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 07 Aug 2001 05:35:49 -0700" <200108071235.f77CZnk18219@jean-baptiste.sendmail.org> To: Eric Allman Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Tony Hansen , Lyndon Nerenberg , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Message-id: <01K6YAD7KETE0025MW@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <"Mail from ned.freed"@mrochek.com> <01K6U10TGVM600257E@mauve.mrochek.com> Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > : From: ned.freed@mrochek.com > : > The way MIME content-types are done, vendor company prefixes are > : > registered: > : > : > Registrations in the vendor tree will be distinguished by the leading > : > facet "vnd.". That may be followed, at the discretion of the > : > registration, by either a media type name from a well-known producer > : > (e.g., "vnd.mudpie") or by an IANA-approved designation of the > : > producer's name which is then followed by a media type or product > : > designation (e.g., vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures). > : > : Note, however, that this registers vnd.bigcompany.funnypictures, not > : vnd.bigcompany or bigcompany. So it isn't strictly correct to say that company > : prefixes are registered. > Ned, I read this differently -- "IANA-approved designation" modifies > "producer's name" -- which is "then followed" by a non-IANA-approved > media type or product designation. Am I totally off? IMO yes you are. You're equating designation with registration. The designations implied by the various facets are checked as part of the process, but only the entire media type is registered. And FWIW, my recollection of the design of this scheme doesn't agree with Tony's. I don't believe vendor or product registrations were ever considered as part of this process. And given recent history in the domain name space as well the recent image/tiff flap in the FAX WG (where a not-insigificant component is perceived ownership of a media type name), had IANA actually elected to implement such a registry I believe we would have a hell of a mess on our hands by now. Ned From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Sat Aug 11 15:20:53 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 PAA08336 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 15:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f7BJBC026826 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f7BJB7N26818 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ph10 (helo=localhost) by virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 15VeA8-0000ux-00 for ietf-msgtrk@imc.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 20:11:08 +0100 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 20:11:08 +0100 (BST) From: Philip Hazel To: Subject: Late comments on the msgtrk documents Message-ID: 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: 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- From subs-reminder@imc.org Thu Aug 23 23:48:43 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 XAA08481 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:48:43 -0400 (EDT) From: subs-reminder@imc.org Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f7O3nwv08473; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200108240349.f7O3nwv08473@above.proper.com> To: msgtrk-archive@ietf.org Subject: [[543000042]] Subscription to ietf-msgtrk for msgtrk-archive@lists.ietf.org Greetings. This message is a periodic reminder that msgtrk-archive@lists.ietf.org is subscribed to the ietf-msgtrk mailing list. There are two purposes for this message: - If this message is bounced by your mail server, I can remove you from the mailing list and reduce waste of bandwidth and resources. (If you are reading this message, it clearly didn't get bounced!) - Some people stay subscribed to mailing lists even though they do not want to because they do not know how to unsubscribe. If you want to stay subscribed to the ietf-msgtrk mailing list, you do not need to do anything. On the other hand, if you want to unsubscribe from this list, go to the following link: You can also unsubscribe by email. To do so, you can respond to this message and I will unsubscribe you by hand in the next few days. Alternatively, you can send a plain-text message to: ietf-msgtrk-request@imc.org with the single word unsubscribe in the body of the message. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Paul Hoffman, list administrator