Protocol Action: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications to Proposed Standard

The IESG <iesg-secretary@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Mon, 30 October 1995 14:20 UTC

To: IETF-Announce:;
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@isi.edu>
Cc: notifications@cs.utk.edu
Sender: ietf-announce-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Subject: Protocol Action: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications to Proposed Standard
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 09:17:11 -0500
Message-ID: <9510300917.aa09766@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

The IESG has approved the following four Internet-Drafts as Proposed
Standards:


 1. SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
	<draft-ietf-notary-smtp-drpt-06.txt>
 2. The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System
    Administrative Messages
	<draft-ietf-notary-mime-report-06.txt>
 3. Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
	<draft-ietf-notary-status-04.txt>
 4. An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications
	<draft-ietf-notary-mime-delivery-07.txt>

These documents are the product of the Notifications and
Acknowledgements Requirements Working Group. The IESG contact persons
are John Klensin and Harald Alvestrand.


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). These facilities have been
much in demand for many years, but only recently has sufficient
protocol infrastructure been available to support them. The first
document specifies the SMTP extension for requesting delivery
notifications, the second and fourth specify message formats, and the
third provides an extended (relative to RFC821) set of error/reporting
codes for use with these mechanisms.


Working Group Summary

The working group reached agreement on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th of these
documents without any significant dissent. The third one remains
somewhat controversial, less because of its inherent technical quality
but because there is continuing disagreement as to whether deployment
of a new response code structure is worth the investment.


Protocol Quality

These specifications has been reviewed for the IESG by John Klensin.
They have also been reviewed by several Applications Area Directorate
members and by external reviewers who were not actively involved with
the WG.

Protocol Action: SMTP Service Extension for Deliv… The IESG