Protocol Action: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications to Draft Standard
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Mon, 23 September 2002 20:11 UTC
Received: from loki.ietf.org (loki [10.27.2.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23124; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:11:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from adm@localhost) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA23117 for ietf-123-outbound.10@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:05:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [10.27.2.28]) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA22908 for <all-ietf@loki.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:42:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22062; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200209231940.PAA22062@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce:;
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications to Draft Standard
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:40:11 -0400
Sender: jhargest@cnri.reston.va.us
The IESG has approved publication of the following Internet-Drafts as Draft Standards: o SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notification <draft-moore-rfc1891bis-02.txt> replacing RFC1891, currently a Proposed Standard. o The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages <draft-vaudreuil-1892bis-02.txt> replacing RFC1892, currently a Proposed Standard. o An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications <draft-vaudreuil-1894bis-02.txt> replacing RFC1894, currently a Proposed Standard. o Enhanced Mail System Status Codes <draft-vaudreuil-1893bis-03.txt> replacing RFC1893, currently a Proposed Standard. The original documents were products of the NOTARY working group. These revised documents have been reviewed in the IETF but are not the product of an active IETF Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ned Freed and Patrik Faltstrom. Technical Summary This package of documents provides a standardized mechanism for requesting and returning notifications of mail delivery (sometimes called acknowledgements) to the user's mailbox using standard internet mail mechanisms (Extended SMTP and MIME). The first document specifies the SMTP extension for requesting delivery notifications, the second and third specify formats for notifications, and the fourth provides an extended (relative to RFC821/RFC2821) set of error/reporting codes for use with these mechanisms. Working Group Summary These documents are revisions of the original documents produced by the NOTARY working group in 1995. Protocol Quality These facilities were first defined in RFCs 1891-1893. Since then they have been widely and successfully deployed. The protocol and formats have not changed in current documents. Ned Freed reviewed these specifications for the IESG. Submitted Implementation Report can be viewed at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/DSN.txt RFC Editor note: Please add the following security considerations section to draft-moore-rfc1891bis-02.txt before section 10: The SMTP extension described in this document does not change the fundamental nature of the SMTP service and hence does not create any new security exposures in and of itself. It necessarity adds complexity to implementations, however, and with added complexity comes an increased risk of implementation errors. Previous ad-hoc delivery notification mechanisms sometimes produced a storm of receipts due to unanticipated interactions with mailing list expansion software. In this specification notification of sucessful delivery is carefully designed so if properly implemented it cannot interact with a list expander in this way. The security considerations section in [9] describes security issues associated with multipart/report objects in general and the security considerations section in [5] describes security issues with DSNs in particular. The fact that a security considerations section was added should be added to the appendix of draft-moore-rfc1891bis-02.txt listing changes made since the previous version. Please add the following sentence to the security considerations section of draft-vaudreuil-1892bis-02.txt: A signature covering the entire multipart/report structure could be used to prevent such forgeries; such a signature scheme is, however, beyond the scope of this document. There are several problems with the ABNF in draft-vaudreuil-1894bis-02.txt that need to be fixed. The line: delivery-status-content = per-message-fields 1* ( CRLF per-recipient-fields ) in section 2.1 should be changed to: delivery-status-content = per-message-fields 1*( CRLF per-recipient-fields ) The line: dsn-gateway field = "DSN in section 2.2.3 should be changed to: dsn-gateway-field = "DSN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name The line: remote-mta field = "Remote in section 2.3.5 should be changed to: remote-mta-field = "Remote-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name The lines: [ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ] [ final-log-id CRLF ] [ will-retry-until-field CRLF ] should be changed to: [ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ] [ final-log-id-field CRLF ] [ will-retry-until-field CRLF ] in both section 2.3 and appendix A. The text in the simple DSN in Appendix E should be changed from: ----- Transcript of session follows ----- <louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu>... Deferred: Connection timed out with larry.slip.umd.edu. Message could not be delivered for 5 days Message will be deleted from queue to: ----- Transcript of session follows ----- <louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu>... Deferred: Connection timed out with larry.slip.umd.edu. Message could not be delivered for 5 days Message will be deleted from queue The text in the second DSN in Appendix E should be changed from: ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- <arathib@vnet.ibm.com> (unrecoverable error) <wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu> (unrecoverable error) to: ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- <arathib@vnet.ibm.com> (unrecoverable error) <wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu> (unrecoverable error) The MIME-Version header field in the DSN from gateway to foreign system example in Appendix E should be changed from: MIME-version: 1.0 content-type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="84229080704991.122306.SYS30" to: MIME-version: 1.0 content-type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="84229080704991.122306.SYS30" The text in that same example should be changed from: Invalid address - nair_s %DIR-E-NODIRMTCH, No matching Directory Entry to: Invalid address - nair_s %DIR-E-NODIRMTCH, No matching Directory Entry The Received header field in the Delayed DSN example in Appendix E should be changed to read: Received: from nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk id: <g.12954-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Received: from nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk id <g.12954-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:36:51 +0100 Finally, the text: UA-ID: Reliable PC (... Q-ID: sun2.nsf:77/msg.11820-0 has not been delivered to the intended recipient: thomas@de-montfort.ac.uk despite repeated delivery attempts over the past 24 hours. in the Delayed DSN example in Appendix E should be changed to read: UA-ID: Reliable PC (... Q-ID: sun2.nsf:77/msg.11820-0 has not been delivered to the intended recipient: thomas@de-montfort.ac.uk despite repeated delivery attempts over the past 24 hours.