From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 12 13:49:35 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 NAA04904 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:49:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9CHiVB11671 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9CHiQD11665 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9CHi7502061; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19126; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110121744.KAA19126@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Philip Hazel From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-reply-to: Mail from Philip Hazel dated Sat, 11 Aug 2001 20:11:08 BST Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:44:08 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Philip, sorry to be so long in responding. Your comments were very good -- nothing like having a fresh pair of eyes. I'll be distributing new drafts to the list later today. My comments follow. : 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. A quick scan shows that RFC numbers 1426, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1830, 1845, 1854, 1869, 1870, 1894, 2197, 2421, 2442, 2476, 2554, 2852, 2920, and 3030 all refer to the "MAIL FROM command". However, the series that this is most closely modeled on (DSNs, RFC 1891-4) do not use that terminology. For this reason, and because we refer to the RCPT command (not the RCPT TO command), I've gone ahead and made the suggested change, but it's hardly universal. Anyone else want to throw anything in on this? : (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. Agreed. : 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. Excellent point. I've changed the wording as follows: (5) The maximum length of a MAIL command line is increased by 40 characters by the possible addition of the MTRK keyword and value. Note that the 507 character extension of RCPT com- mands for the ORCPT parameter and the 107 character exten- sion of MAIL commands for the ENVID parameter as mandated by RFC 1891 [RFC-DSN-SMTP] must also be included. : 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...". Agreed. : 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. Done. : 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.) I left this as is, partially because it is explained later, but partially because the point here is when you MUST assign a new ENVID, not when you need to delete or propagate it. This brings up another point however. RFC 1891 specifies the ENVID value as being 100 characters. Since we have changed this to local-envid "@" fqhn, should we extend this (I claim yes)? If so, to what value? : 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... Yes, I agree, except for the word "new". That could imply that if you forward mail to yourself and another address, this clause applies. In fact it doesn't, except as modified below. : [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.] Generally this would not count as one-to-one redirection. But see below for a possible exception designed specifically for this case. : 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... Yes, this is better. : [My case of "save in mailbox and forward" mentioned above is probably : an example of where the forward address should be "primary", I : suppose.] Exactly. Although it isn't clear which address should be "primary". I would argue that if I leave a copy on my host and also forward my mail to an agent that decides if it should be reformatted and forwarded to my cell phone, then the host version is "primary". But that's why this is (intentionally) left undefined. : 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. Done. : Section 6: : : [RFC_SMTP] should refer to 2821, not 821 I've changed this. However, it isn't clear to me if IETF policy is to refer to the full standard (821) or the standards track (2821). : --------------------------------------------------------------------- : Comments on [TRKSTAT] : : References to RFC 822 should refer to 2822 instead. Changed (except on one case, where the document actually references RFC 1894 section 2.1.3, title of which is ``Lexical tokens imported from RFC 822). : 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. We modeled this document heavily on the DSN series (1891-4). In particular, both 1891 and 1894 require final-recipient. I didn't see any reason to require it there and make it optional here. The truly paranoid can declare delivery to their firewall as "final delivery", in which case no internal topology is exposed. : 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? I'm confused -- the version that I'm look at doesn't say this at all. The current wording is 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. : 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. I changed this to make it optional. Any objections? Wording is 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 SHOULD be included. eric +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. +1-510/594-5501 (work) | |Chief Technical Officer 6425 Christie Ave +1-510/594-5429 (fax) | |eric@Sendmail.COM Emeryville, CA 94608 +1-510/843-9684 (home) | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 12 14:33:01 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 OAA06286 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:33:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9CIQ4912705 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atg.aciworldwide.com (h139-142-180-4.gtcust.grouptelecom.net [139.142.180.4]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9CIQ2D12701 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atg.aciworldwide.com (atg.aciworldwide.com [139.142.180.33]) by atg.aciworldwide.com (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id f9CIQ18f083700; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:26:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200110121826.f9CIQ18f083700@atg.aciworldwide.com> Organization: ACI Worldwide - Advanced Technology Group X-URL: http://www.aciworldwide.com/ X-Notes-Item: Just say no to Notes! To: Eric Allman cc: Philip Hazel , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-Reply-To: Message from Eric Allman of "Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:44:08 PDT." <200110121744.KAA19126@katroo.Sendmail.COM> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:26:01 -0600 From: Lyndon Nerenberg Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: > : (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. > > A quick scan shows that RFC numbers 1426, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1830, 1845, > 1854, 1869, 1870, 1894, 2197, 2421, 2442, 2476, 2554, 2852, 2920, and > 3030 all refer to the "MAIL FROM command". However, the series that > this is most closely modeled on (DSNs, RFC 1891-4) do not use that > terminology. For this reason, and because we refer to the RCPT command > (not the RCPT TO command), I've gone ahead and made the suggested > change, but it's hardly universal. Anyone else want to throw anything > in on this? RFC2821 uses "MAIL command." Since that's the definitive reference we should be consistent with it. --lyndon /* Pre-C-Preprocessor to translate ANSI trigraph idiocy in BUF before main CCCP processing. Name `pcp' is also in honor of the drugs the trigraph designers must have been on. */ From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 12 18:33:07 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 SAA10490 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9CMG6618504 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9CMG5D18500 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9CMG7525722 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19741 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110122216.PAA19741@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric Subject: new drafts of draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03, trkstat-03 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed ; boundary="==_Exmh_21336430370" Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:16:07 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multipart MIME message. --==_Exmh_21336430370 Content-Type: text/plain I'll be formally submitting these probably next week, but I wanted to give folks a chance to catch anything bone-headed first. eric --==_Exmh_21336430370 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 October 12, 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 October 12, 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 command. In addition, the ENVID parameter of the MAIL command (as defined in RFC 1891 sections 5.4) MUST be supported, with extensions as described below. The ORCPT parameter of the RCPT command (as defined in RFC 1891 sec- tion 5.2) MUST also be supported. (5) The maximum length of a MAIL command line is increased by 40 characters by the possible addition of the MTRK keyword and value. Note that the 507 character extension of RCPT com- mands for the ORCPT parameter and the 107 character exten- sion of MAIL commands for the ENVID parameter as mandated by RFC 1891 [RFC-DSN-SMTP] must also be included. (6) No SMTP verbs are defined by this extension. Allman & Hansen [Page 2] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension October 12, 2001 4. The Extended MAIL Command The extended MAIL command is issued by an SMTP client when it wishes to inform an SMTP server that message tracking information should be retained for future querying. The extended MAIL command is identical to the MAIL command as defined in [RFC-SMTP], except that MTRK, ORCPT, and ENVID parameters appear after the address. 4.1. The MTRK parameter to the ESMTP MAIL command Any sender wishing to request the retention of data for further tracking of message must first tag that message as trackable by creating two values A and B: A = some-large-random-number B = SHA1(A) The large random number A is calculated on a host-dependent basis. See [RFC-RANDOM] for a discussion of choosing good 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 command: mtrk-parameter = "MTRK=" mtrk-certifier [ ":" mtrk-timeout ] mtrk-certifier = base64 ; authenticator mtrk-timeout = 1*9digit ; seconds until timeout A is stored in the originator's tracking database to vali- date future tracking requests as described in [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP]. B is stored in tracking databases of compliant receiver MTAs and used to authenticate future tracking requests. The mtrk-timeout field indicates the number of seconds that the client requests that this tracking information be retained on intermediate servers, as measured from the initial receipt of the message at that server. Servers MAY ignore this value if it violates local policy. In particular, servers MAY silently enforce an upper limit to how long they will retain tracking data; this limit MUST be at least one day. If no mtrk-timeout field is specified then the server should use a local default. This default SHOULD be 8-10 days and MUST be at least one day. Notwithstanding this clause, the information MUST NOT be expired while the message remains in the queue for this server: that is, an MTQP server MUST NOT deny knowledge of a message while that same message sits in the MTA queue. If the message is relayed to another compliant SMTP server, the MTA acting as the client SHOULD pass an mtrk-timeout field Allman & Hansen [Page 3] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension October 12, 2001 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 a recipi- ent occurs, and the result of the redirection is exactly one recipient, then the MTA SHOULD treat this as an ordinary hop-to- hop transfer and forward the MTRK=, ENVID=, and ORCPT= values; these values MUST NOT be modified. MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when a recipient is aliased, forwarded, or otherwise redirected and the redirection results in more than one recipient. However, an MTA MAY Allman & Hansen [Page 4] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension October 12, 2001 designate one of the multiple recipients as the "primary" recip- ient to which tracking requests shall be forwarded; other addresses MUST NOT receive tracking certifiers. MTAs MUST NOT forward MTRK certifiers when doing mailing list expansion. 5. Security Issues 5.1. Denial of service An attacker could attempt to flood the database of a server by submitting large numbers of small, tracked messages. In this case, a site may elect to lower its maximum retention period retroactively. 5.2. Confidentiality The mtrk-authenticator value (``A'') must be hard to 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. Therefore, implementors are encouraged to provide mecha- nisms by which site administrators can choose between these alternatives. 6. Acknowledgements Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this draft, including Philip Hazel, Alexey Melnikov, Lyndon Nerenberg, Chris Newman, and Gregory Neil Shapiro. 7. References [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.'' draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000. Allman & Hansen [Page 5] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension October 12, 2001 [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. 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] P. Resnick, editor, ``Internet Message Format.'' RFC 2822. April 2001. [RFC-RANDOM] D. Eastlake, S. Crocker, and J. Schiller, ``Randomness Recom- mendations for Security.'' RFC 1750. December 1994. Allman & Hansen [Page 6] Internet Draft Message Tracking ESMTP Extension October 12, 2001 [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. Klensin, editor, ``Simple Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2821. April 2001. 8. Authors' Addresses Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. 6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor Emeryville, CA 94608 U.S.A. E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Fax: +1 510 594 5429 Tony Hansen AT&T Laboratories Lincroft, NJ 07738 U.S.A. Phone: +1 732 576 3207 E-Mail: tony@att.com Allman & Hansen [Page 7] --==_Exmh_21336430370 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 October 12, 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 October 12, 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 of type "message/tracking-status" as described herein. The mul- tipart/related body can include multiple message/tracking-status parts if an MTQP server chains requests to the next server; see [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] and [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] for more information about chaining. 3.1. The message/tracking-status content-type The message/tracking-status content-type is defined as fol- lows: Allman [Page 2] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status October 12, 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 2822 header "fields" (see [RFC-MSGFMT]). The per-message fields appear first, followed by a blank line. Following the per-message fields are one or more groups of per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line. Note that there will be a blank line between the final per-recipient field and the MIME boundary, since one CRLF is necessary to terminate the field, and a second is necessary to introduce the MIME boundary. 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 October 12, 2001 3.2.1. The Original-Envelope-Id field The Original-Envelope-Id field is defined as in section 2.2.1 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.2.2. The Reporting-MTA field The Reporting-MTA field is defined as in section 2.2.2 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.2.3. The Arrival-Date field The Arrival-Date field is defined as in section 2.2.5 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. 3.3. Per-Recipient MTSN fields An MTSN contains information about attempts to deliver a message to one or more recipients. The delivery information for any particular recipient is contained in a group of contiguous per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line. The syntax for the group of per-recipient fields is as 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 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 October 12, 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 SHOULD 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 SHOULD 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 October 12, 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 SHOULD be included. 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 October 12, 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. Acknowledgements Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this draft, including Tony Hansen, Philip Hazel, Alexey Melnikov, Lyndon Neren- berg, Chris Newman, Gregory Neil Shapiro, and Dan Wing. 6. References [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.'' draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000. [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query Protocol.'' draft-ietf- msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt. November 2000. Allman [Page 7] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status October 12, 2001 [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT] E. Allman, ``SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking.'' draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt. December 2000. [RFC-ABNF] Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for 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] P. Resnick, editor, ``Internet Message Format.'' RFC 2822. April 2001. Allman [Page 8] Internet Draft Message/Tracking-Status October 12, 2001 [RFC-RELATED] E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC 2387. August 1998. 7. Author's Address Eric Allman Sendmail, Inc. 6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor Emeryville, CA 94608 U.S.A. E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Fax: +1 510 594 5429 Allman [Page 9] --==_Exmh_21336430370-- From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 13 12:18:58 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 MAA04732 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9DGFio05994 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9DGFgD05989 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9DGD3Kx023189 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9DGD3Dv023186; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:13:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15304.26639.292258.311781@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:13:03 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Meeting in Salt Lake City? X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is the Message Track working group planning on meeting (formally or informally) at Salt Lake City's IETF? From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 13 14:02:31 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 OAA05427 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9DHwmk09249 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kcmso1.proxy.att.com (kcmso1.att.com [192.128.133.69]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9DHwfD09245 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:58:41 -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 f9DHvuk28743 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.com ([135.210.75.13]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <2001101317575309900fbg6ke> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:57:55 +0000 Message-ID: <3BC87FCC.F9C9AF8D@att.com> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:54:20 -0400 From: Tony Hansen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro CC: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Meeting in Salt Lake City? References: <15304.26639.292258.311781@horsey.gshapiro.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With the latest updated drafts, we should be able to go to last call, and NOT meet in Salt Lake. Tony Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > > Is the Message Track working group planning on meeting (formally or > informally) at Salt Lake City's IETF? From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 04:14:07 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 EAA21871 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 04:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9F85Pu04119 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.20]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9F85JD04115 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ph10 (helo=localhost) by virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 15t2kM-0003W0-00; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:05:14 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:05:14 +0100 (BST) From: Philip Hazel To: Eric Allman cc: Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-Reply-To: <200110121744.KAA19126@katroo.Sendmail.COM> 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: On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Eric Allman wrote: > Philip, sorry to be so long in responding. No problem. I wasn't exactly waiting! But the IETF meeting in London now feels as if it was in another universe and long ago. Thanks for responding in detail. I don't think I've got any further comments. Philip -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 14:16:42 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 OAA08525 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FIBZI13125 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FIBYD13121 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9FIBaZh068904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9FIBauZ068901; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:11:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15307.9943.995573.880228@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:11:35 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Eric Allman Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-Reply-To: <200110121744.KAA19126@katroo.Sendmail.COM> References: <200110121744.KAA19126@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit eric> This brings up another point however. RFC 1891 specifies the ENVID eric> value as being 100 characters. Since we have changed this to eric> local-envid "@" fqhn, should we extend this (I claim yes)? If so, to eric> what value? Given that RFC 2822 section 4.5.3.1 states that the maximum length of he domain portion is 255 characters, I would assume 256 (255 + 1 for "@") would be a good number to add. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 14:46:35 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 OAA09222 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FIhes13690 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FIhdD13685 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9FIhfZh069172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9FIhftt069169; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:43:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15307.11869.301499.735125@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:43:41 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Eric Allman Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: new drafts of draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03, trkstat-03 In-Reply-To: <200110122216.PAA19741@katroo.Sendmail.COM> References: <200110122216.PAA19741@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Did you seriously expect me not to have a comment? :) eric> eric> 3.3.3. Action field eric> transferred The message has been transferred to another eric> MTRK-compliant MTA. The tracking agent SHOULD eric> attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. Given that chaining can be used, I think that last sentence should read: The tracking agent SHOULD attempt further "downstream" tracking requests unless that information is given later in chaining responses. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 15:03:24 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 PAA09696 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FJ12G14011 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FJ0wD13996 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9FJ0V520060; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10475; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110151900.MAA10475@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: Eric Allman , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: new drafts of draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03, trkstat-03 In-reply-to: Mail from Gregory Neil Shapiro dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:43:41 PDT <15307.11869.301499.735125@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:00:37 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: : Did you seriously expect me not to have a comment? :) Of course not.... : eric> : : eric> 3.3.3. Action field : : eric> transferred The message has been transferred to another : eric> MTRK-compliant MTA. The tracking agent SHOULD : eric> attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. : : Given that chaining can be used, I think that last sentence should read: : : The tracking agent SHOULD attempt further "downstream" tracking requests : unless that information is given later in chaining responses. Agreed -- I've made the wording changes you suggested. eric From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 15:24:16 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10129 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FJEWn14368 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FJEVD14364 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9FJEW521279; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11918; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110151914.MAA11918@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: Eric Allman , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-reply-to: Mail from Gregory Neil Shapiro dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:11:35 PDT <15307.9943.995573.880228@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 12:14:37 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: : eric> This brings up another point however. RFC 1891 specifies the ENVID : eric> value as being 100 characters. Since we have changed this to : eric> local-envid "@" fqhn, should we extend this (I claim yes)? If so, to : eric> what value? : : Given that RFC 2822 section 4.5.3.1 states that the maximum length of he : domain portion is 255 characters, I would assume 256 (255 + 1 for "@") : would be a good number to add. I was starting to make this change and suddenly realized that we may have a conundrum here. The obvious approach is to increase the length of the ENVID parameter from 100 to 356. However, how would I implement this when initially submitting the message? The obvious implementation (if the submitter supports MSGTRK) would be to always create a fully qualified ENVID. But if that message gets relayed to a non-MSGTRK agent, that ENVID could be too long, and so you've created a non-compliant envelope. I'm starting to lean toward leaving it at 100 characters for this reason, although that could be problematic (disastrous?) if IDN goes for ACE encoding, since the expected length of domain names will go up. Opinions? eric From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 16:59:16 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11601 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FKpTh16300 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FKpSD16294 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9FKpUZh078941 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9FKpUMC078938; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15307.19538.177040.536714@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:51:30 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Eric Allman Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-Reply-To: <200110151914.MAA11918@katroo.Sendmail.COM> References: <15307.9943.995573.880228@horsey.gshapiro.net> <200110151914.MAA11918@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit eric> I was starting to make this change and suddenly realized that we may eric> have a conundrum here. The obvious approach is to increase the length eric> of the ENVID parameter from 100 to 356. However, how would I implement eric> this when initially submitting the message? The obvious implementation eric> (if the submitter supports MSGTRK) would be to always create a fully eric> qualified ENVID. But if that message gets relayed to a non-MSGTRK eric> agent, that ENVID could be too long, and so you've created a eric> non-compliant envelope. eric> I'm starting to lean toward leaving it at 100 characters for this eric> reason, although that could be problematic (disastrous?) if IDN goes eric> for ACE encoding, since the expected length of domain names will eric> go up. eric> Opinions? Yes, but it probably won't be liked. This shows the danger of reusing an existing protocol element for a new purpose. I guess MsgTrk will have to be limited. C'est la vie. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 17:38:21 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12660 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FLb3x17253 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [192.11.222.161]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FLb2D17248 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co7040exch001p.wins.lucent.com (h135-39-1-40.lucent.com [135.39.1.40]) by ihemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id f9FLb3424896 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by co7040exch001p.milehi.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4WLML37Q>; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:36:53 -0600 Message-ID: <0096D8500C92D211BAEB0008C7F4906C0513EA09@co7040exch002u.milehi.lucent.com> From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" To: Gregory Neil Shapiro , Eric Allman Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: RE: Late comments on the msgtrk documents Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:36:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Why would ACE not cause this same problem with other uses of envid? It seems that this is a more general problem. If we need to grow the envelope-iD for ACE, we should enlarge it in the DSN specs as well. Lurkin' for too long. Greg V. -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Neil Shapiro [mailto:gshapiro@Sendmail.ORG] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 3:52 PM To: Eric Allman Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents eric> I was starting to make this change and suddenly realized that we may eric> have a conundrum here. The obvious approach is to increase the length eric> of the ENVID parameter from 100 to 356. However, how would I implement eric> this when initially submitting the message? The obvious implementation eric> (if the submitter supports MSGTRK) would be to always create a fully eric> qualified ENVID. But if that message gets relayed to a non-MSGTRK eric> agent, that ENVID could be too long, and so you've created a eric> non-compliant envelope. eric> I'm starting to lean toward leaving it at 100 characters for this eric> reason, although that could be problematic (disastrous?) if IDN goes eric> for ACE encoding, since the expected length of domain names will eric> go up. eric> Opinions? Yes, but it probably won't be liked. This shows the danger of reusing an existing protocol element for a new purpose. I guess MsgTrk will have to be limited. C'est la vie. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 17:47:54 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12847 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FLjgD17375 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FLjfD17369 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9FLjiZh079764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9FLjihh079761; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:45:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15307.22791.836841.893617@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:45:43 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: RE: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-Reply-To: <0096D8500C92D211BAEB0008C7F4906C0513EA09@co7040exch002u.milehi.lucent.com> References: <0096D8500C92D211BAEB0008C7F4906C0513EA09@co7040exch002u.milehi.lucent.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit gregv> Why would ACE not cause this same problem with other uses of envid? It gregv> seems that this is a more general problem. If we need to grow the gregv> envelope-iD for ACE, we should enlarge it in the DSN specs as well. Envelope-ID pre-message track was immune to IDN as it didn't include a domain name. Actually, it doesn't in message track either, it's just suggested that it can be made unique by adding an FQDN. However, other things in DSNs (and the protocol) will need to change if IDN gives us longer hostnames. gregv> Lurkin' for too long. Welcome to the madness. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 18:07:32 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 SAA14017 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FM4rK17722 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FM4gD17718 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9FM4h505507; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29591; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110152204.PAA29591@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: Gregory Neil Shapiro , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-reply-to: Mail from "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:36:52 MDT <0096D8500C92D211BAEB0008C7F4906C0513EA09@co7040exch002u.milehi.lucent.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:04:44 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: The current DSN standards say that ENVID doesn't have to have an @domain part on it at all -- it only has to be unique to the sending system. We are trying to use it to be unique across all messages that a server might see -- essentially an envelope-level Message-Id. So I think we're clear for DSNs, but we have a headache for MSGTRK. Another approach would be to define yet another envelope tag, e.g., ENVIDprime, that would only be used for MSGTRK. Seems kind of ugly to me, but it does avoid this problem. eric ============= In Reply To: =========================================== : From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" : Subject: RE: Late comments on the msgtrk documents : Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:36:52 -0600 : : : Why would ACE not cause this same problem with other uses of envid? It : seems that this is a more general problem. If we need to grow the : envelope-iD for ACE, we should enlarge it in the DSN specs as well. : : Lurkin' for too long. : : Greg V. : : : -----Original Message----- : From: Gregory Neil Shapiro [mailto:gshapiro@Sendmail.ORG] : Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 3:52 PM : To: Eric Allman : Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org : Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents : : : : eric> I was starting to make this change and suddenly realized that we may : eric> have a conundrum here. The obvious approach is to increase the length : eric> of the ENVID parameter from 100 to 356. However, how would I : implement : eric> this when initially submitting the message? The obvious : implementation : eric> (if the submitter supports MSGTRK) would be to always create a fully : eric> qualified ENVID. But if that message gets relayed to a non-MSGTRK : eric> agent, that ENVID could be too long, and so you've created a : eric> non-compliant envelope. : : eric> I'm starting to lean toward leaving it at 100 characters for this : eric> reason, although that could be problematic (disastrous?) if IDN goes : eric> for ACE encoding, since the expected length of domain names will : eric> go up. : : eric> Opinions? : : Yes, but it probably won't be liked. This shows the danger of reusing an : existing protocol element for a new purpose. I guess MsgTrk will have to : be limited. C'est la vie. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 18:13:36 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 SAA14161 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FM9Ns17776 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FM9ND17772 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9FM9O505968; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00385; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110152209.PAA00385@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-reply-to: Mail from Gregory Neil Shapiro dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:45:43 PDT <15307.22791.836841.893617@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:09:25 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: : Envelope-ID pre-message track was immune to IDN as it didn't include a : domain name. Actually, it doesn't in message track either, it's just : suggested that it can be made unique by adding an FQDN. However, other : things in DSNs (and the protocol) will need to change if IDN gives us : longer hostnames. Actually, I think you'll find that draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt defines ENVID as including a FQHN (see section 4.2). eric From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 18:19:59 2001 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14268 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FMEgP17892 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (root@horsey.gshapiro.net [209.220.147.178]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FMEfD17887 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from horsey.gshapiro.net (gshapiro@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id f9FMEiZh080183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gshapiro@localhost) by horsey.gshapiro.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id f9FMEibo080180; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15307.24531.841545.133558@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:43 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro To: Eric Allman Cc: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-Reply-To: <200110152209.PAA00385@katroo.Sendmail.COM> References: <15307.22791.836841.893617@horsey.gshapiro.net> <200110152209.PAA00385@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under 21.5 (beta3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit gshapiro> Envelope-ID pre-message track was immune to IDN as it didn't gshapiro> include a domain name. Actually, it doesn't in message track gshapiro> either, it's just suggested that it can be made unique by adding gshapiro> an FQDN. eric> Actually, I think you'll find that draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-03.txt eric> defines ENVID as including a FQHN (see section 4.2). The text I am referring to in 4.2 is envid-parameter = "ENVID=" unique-envid unique-envid = local-envid "@" fqhn local-envid = xtext fqhn = xtext ... In most cases, this means setting fqhn to be the fully qualified host name of the system generat- ing this ENVID ... "In most cases" leaves the door open for it not being required. The document never says what "fqhn" must be. By my reading of the document, an ENVID of "123@6425ChristieAvenueSuite4000EmeryvilleCA94608USA" is perfectly legal as long as I can guarantee it's uniqueness. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 18:30:47 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 SAA14484 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FMSui18261 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FMSuD18257 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9FMSv507752; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02527; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110152229.PAA02527@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-reply-to: Mail from Gregory Neil Shapiro dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:43 PDT <15307.24531.841545.133558@horsey.gshapiro.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:28:58 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Good point, and (as we discussed) in some cases you _can't_ use your host name, as for example if you get a dynamic name from an ISP (since it can be re-used you can't guarantee uniqueness of the LHS). eric ============= In Reply To: =========================================== : From: Gregory Neil Shapiro : Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents : Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:43 -0700 : The text I am referring to in 4.2 is : : envid-parameter = "ENVID=" unique-envid : unique-envid = local-envid "@" fqhn : local-envid = xtext : fqhn = xtext : ... : In most cases, this means setting : fqhn to be the fully qualified host name of the system generat- : ing this ENVID : ... : : "In most cases" leaves the door open for it not being required. The : document never says what "fqhn" must be. By my reading of the document, an : ENVID of "123@6425ChristieAvenueSuite4000EmeryvilleCA94608USA" is perfectly : legal as long as I can guarantee it's uniqueness. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 19:42:43 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 TAA15339 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:42:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FNaWt19609 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [192.11.222.163]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FNaUD19605 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co7040exch001p.wins.lucent.com (h135-39-1-40.lucent.com [135.39.1.40]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id f9FNaVp27452 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by co7040exch001p.milehi.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4WLMLP61>; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:36:31 -0600 Message-ID: <0096D8500C92D211BAEB0008C7F4906C0513EB7D@co7040exch002u.milehi.lucent.com> From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: RE: Late comments on the msgtrk documents Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:36:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: OK. I get it. But given that FQDNs can be quite long, even without ACE, should we not provide some advice about what to do when the suggested envid construction rules result in something too long? How about a secure hash of the ENVID? I guess in general I'd like to downgrade the requirement to use FQDN's but ensure that the requirement for globally unique envids are very clear. Also, given the presumably tiny risk of non-uniqueness, what is the failure mode look like? Extra, bogus, records to be sorted out by the person requesting the trace? If so, this does not seem too bad given the small risk. That is, assuming the trace records have other information to distinguish the bogus records, like message sender. I figure I should be able to stand up in court and say "clearly your honor, these are bogus records and don't prove that my nasty message was delivered to Mr. Smith". Greg V. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Allman [mailto:eric+msgtrk@Sendmail.ORG] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 5:29 PM To: Gregory Neil Shapiro Cc: Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg); ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents Good point, and (as we discussed) in some cases you _can't_ use your host name, as for example if you get a dynamic name from an ISP (since it can be re-used you can't guarantee uniqueness of the LHS). eric ============= In Reply To: =========================================== : From: Gregory Neil Shapiro : Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents : Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:14:43 -0700 : The text I am referring to in 4.2 is : : envid-parameter = "ENVID=" unique-envid : unique-envid = local-envid "@" fqhn : local-envid = xtext : fqhn = xtext : ... : In most cases, this means setting : fqhn to be the fully qualified host name of the system generat- : ing this ENVID : ... : : "In most cases" leaves the door open for it not being required. The : document never says what "fqhn" must be. By my reading of the document, an : ENVID of "123@6425ChristieAvenueSuite4000EmeryvilleCA94608USA" is perfectly : legal as long as I can guarantee it's uniqueness. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 15 20:02:32 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 UAA15833 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 20:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9FNvsr19833 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.sendmail.com (spork.Sendmail.COM [209.246.26.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9FNvoD19829 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katroo.Sendmail.COM (natted.Sendmail.COM [63.211.143.38]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id f9FNvq515179; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mathieu.smi.sendmail.com (mathieu.smi.sendmail.com [10.210.202.23]) by katroo.Sendmail.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12179; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110152358.QAA12179@katroo.Sendmail.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/16/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" From: Eric Allman X-URL: http://WWW.Sendmail.ORG/~eric cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents In-reply-to: Mail from "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:36:29 MDT <0096D8500C92D211BAEB0008C7F4906C0513EB7D@co7040exch002u.milehi.lucent.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:57:53 -0700 Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Interesting idea -- create (locally) the full unique-string@fully.qualified.host.name which can be arbitrarily long, and then SHA1 it so you get something manageable. This would make it fit into the existing definition of ENVID. Unfortunately, the failure mode could be nasty, assuming the server discards duplicates. One approach might be to say that duplicates are determined on the (ENVID, MTRK) pair. There is still a theoretical chance of getting dups, but I think that's pretty far into theory. I think sending "extra, bogus, records" to a requester could reasonably be considered a security problem (information leakage). eric ============= In Reply To: =========================================== : From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" : Subject: RE: Late comments on the msgtrk documents : Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:36:29 -0600 : : OK. I get it. But given that FQDNs can be quite long, even without ACE, : should we not provide some advice about what to do when the suggested envid : construction rules result in something too long? How about a secure hash : of the ENVID? I guess in general I'd like to downgrade the requirement to : use FQDN's but ensure that the requirement for globally unique envids are : very clear. : : Also, given the presumably tiny risk of non-uniqueness, what is the failure : mode look like? Extra, bogus, records to be sorted out by the person : requesting the trace? If so, this does not seem too bad given the small : risk. That is, assuming the trace records have other information to : distinguish the bogus records, like message sender. I figure I should be : able to stand up in court and say "clearly your honor, these are bogus : records and don't prove that my nasty message was delivered to Mr. Smith". : : Greg V. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 16 01:40:10 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 BAA23620 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9G5MI624028 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (IDENT:root@rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9G5MGD24024 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from einstein.esys.ca (h24-82-7-239.ed.shawcable.net [24.82.7.239]) (authenticated) by rembrandt.esys.ca (8.11.0.Beta0/8.11.0.Beta0) with ESMTP id f9G5MFK15699; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:22:15 -0600 From: Steve Hole Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:28:32 -0600 To: Gregory Neil Shapiro Subject: Re: Meeting in Salt Lake City? Cc: ietf-msgtrk@imc.org In-Reply-To: <15304.26639.292258.311781@horsey.gshapiro.net> References: <15304.26639.292258.311781@horsey.gshapiro.net> Message-ID: X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10) -- Evaluation Copy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:13:03 -0700 Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote: > Is the Message Track working group planning on meeting (formally or > informally) at Salt Lake City's IETF? We were thinking that we were ready for last call ... therefore no meeting. It will depend whether or not we feel there are substantive issues being raised in the most recent threads. I suspect not. Cheers. Steve. From owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 18 18:42:09 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 SAA20997 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f9IMdK800286 for ietf-msgtrk-bks; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rembrandt.esys.ca (IDENT:root@rembrandt.esys.ca [198.161.92.131]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f9IMdID00282 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kepler.esys.ca (kepler.esys.ca [198.161.92.108]) (authenticated) by rembrandt.esys.ca (8.11.0.Beta0/8.11.0.Beta0) with ESMTP id f9IMd6K02216; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:39:06 -0600 From: Steve Hole Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:38:58 -0700 To: Eric Allman Subject: Re: Late comments on the msgtrk documents Cc: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" , ietf-msgtrk@imc.org In-Reply-To: <200110152358.QAA12179@katroo.Sendmail.COM> References: <200110152358.QAA12179@katroo.Sendmail.COM> Mail from "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:36:29 MDT<0096D8500C92D211BAEB0008C7F4906C0513EB7D@co7040exch002u.milehi.lucent.com> Message-ID: X-Mailer: Execmail for Linux 5.3 b1 Build (1) -- Evaluation Copy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-msgtrk@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:57:53 -0700 Eric Allman wrote: > > Interesting idea -- create (locally) the full > > unique-string@fully.qualified.host.name > > which can be arbitrarily long, and then SHA1 it so you get something > manageable. This would make it fit into the existing definition of > ENVID. Unfortunately, the failure mode could be nasty, assuming > the server discards duplicates. I would suggest that we make a recommendation that FQDN is a good candidate for generating uniqueness. Further, if the FQDN can't be used directly because it is too long, then a SHA1 hash of the FQDN is a suitable substitute. It is further recommended that the application create the lhs of the envid such that it conveys uniqueness over a large set of possibilities. The combination is *very* likely to be unique. If the fqdn can't be used because it is not reliable or doesn't make sense (the allocated address scenario), then it is left to the application to provide unique information. Cheers. --- Steve Hole Chief Technology Officer - - Billing and Payment Systems ACI Worldwide - MessagingDirect Phone: 780-424-4922