[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-yao-eai-rfc5336bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RFC 6531

Network Working Group                                             J. Yao
Internet-Draft                                                    W. Mao
Obsoletes: 5336 (if approved)                                      CNNIC
Intended status: Standards Track                       November 10, 2011
Expires: May 13, 2012


               SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email
                    draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-16.txt

Abstract

   This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery
   of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header
   information.  This specification replaces RFC 5336.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 13, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.








































Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Changes Made to Other Specifications . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Overview of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Mail Transport-Level Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Framework for the Internationalization Extension . . . . .  5
     3.2.  The UTF8SMTPbis Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Extended Mailbox Address Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.4.  MAIL Command Parameter Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.5.  Non-ASCII addresses and Reply-codes  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.6.  Body Parts and SMTP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.7.  Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications  . . . . . . . 11
       3.7.1.  The Initial SMTP Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.7.2.  Mail eXchangers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.7.3.  Trace Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.7.4.  UTF-8 Strings in Replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.1.  SMTP Service Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.  SMTP Enhanced Status Code Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  WITH protocol types sub-registry of the Mail
           Transmission Types Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.1.  draft-yao-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.2.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00  . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.3.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 01  . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.4.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 02  . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.5.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 03  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.6.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 04  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.7.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 05  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.8.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 06  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.9.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 07  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.10. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 08  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.11. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 09  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.12. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 10  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.13. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 11  . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.14. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 12  . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.15. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 13  . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.16. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 14  . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.17. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 15  . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.18. draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 16  . . . . . . . . . . 19
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


1.  Introduction

   The document defines a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol [RFC5321]
   extension so servers can advertise the ability to accept and process
   internationalized email addresses (see section 1.1), and
   internationalized email headers [RFC5335bis].

   An extended overview of the extension model for internationalized
   email addresses and the email header appears in [RFC4952bis],
   referred to as "the framework document" in this specification.  A
   thorough understanding of the information in that document and in the
   base Internet email specifications [RFC5321] [RFC5322] is necessary
   to understand and implement this specification.

   [[anchor1: Note in Draft and to RFC Editor: The keyword represented
   in this document by "UTF8SMTPbis" (and in the XML source by
   "UTF8SMTPbis") is a placeholder.  The actual keyword will need to be
   assigned after document approval by a process to be worked out
   between the responsible AD, WG co-chairs, and IANA.  The assigned
   keyword should be substituted here.  This paragraph should be removed
   before RFC publication.]]

1.1.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   The terms "UTF-8 string" or "UTF-8 character" are used to refer to
   Unicode characters, which may or may not be members of the ASCII
   subset, encoded in UTF-8.  All other specialized terms used in this
   specification are defined in the framework document or in the base
   Internet email specifications.  In particular, the terms "ASCII
   address", "internationalized email address", "non-ASCII address",
   "UTF8SMTPbis", "internationalized message", and "message" are used in
   this document according to the definitions in the framework document.

   Non-ASCII characters or strings referred in this document MUST be
   expressed in UTF-8, a standard Unicode Encoding Form.

   This specification uses Augmented BNF (ABNF) rules [RFC5234].  Some
   basic rules in this document are identified in Section 3.3 as being
   defined (under the same names) in [RFC5234], [RFC5321], [RFC5890] or
   [RFC5335bis].







Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


1.2.  Changes Made to Other Specifications

   This specification extends some syntax rules defined in RFC 5321 and
   permits internationalized email addresses in the envelope, but it
   does not modify RFC 5321.  It permits data formats defined in
   [RFC5335bis], but it does not modify RFC 5322.  It does require that
   the 8BITMIME extension [RFC6152] be announced by the UTF8SMTPbis-
   aware SMTP server and used with "BODY=8BMITMIME" by the UTF8SMTPbis-
   aware SMTP client, but it does not modify the 8BITMIME specification
   in any way.

   This specification replaces an earlier, experimental, approach to the
   same problem [RFC5336].  Section 6 of [RFC4952bis] describes the
   changes in approach between [RFC5336] and this specification.  Anyone
   trying to convert an implementation from the experimental
   specification to the specification in this document will need to
   review those changes carefully.


2.  Overview of Operation

   This document specifies an element of the email internationalization
   work, specifically the definition of an SMTP extension for
   internationalized email.  The extension is identified with the token
   "UTF8SMTPbis".

   The internationalized email headers specification [RFC5335bis]
   provides the details of email header features enabled by this
   extension


3.  Mail Transport-Level Protocol

3.1.  Framework for the Internationalization Extension

   The following service extension is defined:
   1.   The name of the SMTP service extension is "Internationalized
        Email".
   2.   The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
        "UTF8SMTPbis".
   3.   No parameter values are defined for this EHLO keyword value.  In
        order to permit future (although unanticipated) extensions, the
        EHLO response MUST NOT contain any parameters for this keyword.
        The UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client MUST ignore any parameters if
        they appear for this keyword; that is, the UTF8SMTPbis-aware
        SMTP client MUST behave as if the parameters do not appear.  If
        an SMTP server includes UTF8SMTPbis in its EHLO response, it
        MUST be fully compliant with this version of this specification.



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   4.   One OPTIONAL parameter "UTF8SMTPbis" is added to the MAIL
        command.  The parameter has no value.  If this parameter is set
        in the MAIL command, it indicates that the SMTP client is
        UTF8SMTPbis-aware and asserts that the envelope includes the
        non-ASCII address or the message being sent is internationalized
        message or the message being sent needs the UTF8SMTPbis support.
   5.   The maximum length of a MAIL command line is increased by 13
        characters by the possible addition of the UTF8SMTPbis
        parameter. [[anchor5: RFC Editor: the number '13' will be
        replaced by the new number (2 spaces + length of the new keyword
        supposed to replace "UTF8SMTPbis").]]
   6.   One OPTIONAL parameter "UTF8SMTPbis" is added to the VRFY and
        EXPN commands.  The parameter UTF8SMTPbis has no value.  The
        parameter indicates that the SMTP client can accept Unicode
        characters in UTF-8 encoding in replies from the VRFY and EXPN
        commands.
   7.   No additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
   8.   Servers offering this extension MUST provide support for, and
        announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC6152].
   9.   The reverse-path and forward-path of the SMTP MAIL and RCPT
        commands are extended to allow Unicode characters encoded in
        UTF-8 in mailbox names (addresses).
   10.  The mail message body is extended as specified in [RFC5335bis].
   11.  The UTF8SMTPbis extension is valid on the submission port
        [RFC4409].  It may also be used with LMTP [RFC2033].  When these
        protocols are used, their use should be reflected in trace field
        WITH keywords as appropriate [RFC3848].

3.2.  The UTF8SMTPbis Extension

   An SMTP server that announces this UTF8SMTPbis extension MUST be
   prepared to accept a UTF-8 string [RFC3629] in any position in which
   RFC 5321 specifies that a <mailbox> can appear.  Although the
   characters in the <local-part> are permitted to contain non-ASCII
   characters, actual parsing of the <local-part>, and the delimiters
   used, are unchanged from the base email specification [RFC5321].  Any
   domain name to be looked up in the DNS MUST conform to and be
   processed as specified for IDNA [RFC5890].  When doing lookups, the
   UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client or server MUST either use a Unicode
   aware DNS library, or transform the internationalized domain name to
   the form of A-label as described in [RFC5890].

   An SMTP client that receives the UTF8SMTPbis extension keyword in
   response to the EHLO command MAY transmit mailbox names within SMTP
   commands as internationalized strings in UTF-8 form.  It MAY send a
   UTF-8 header [RFC5335bis] (which may also include mailbox names in
   UTF-8).  It MAY transmit the domain parts of mailbox names within
   SMTP commands or the message header as A-labels or U-labels



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   [RFC5890].  The presence of the UTF8SMTPbis extension does not change
   RFC 5321 server relaying behaviors.

   If the UTF8SMTPbis SMTP extension is not offered by the SMTP server,
   the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client MUST NOT transmit an
   internationalized email address and MUST NOT transmit a mail message
   containing internationalized mail headers as described in
   [RFC5335bis] at any level within its MIME structure [RFC2045].  (For
   this paragraph, the internationalized domain name in the form of
   A-labels as specified in IDNA definitions [RFC5890] is not considered
   to be "internationalized".)  Instead, if a UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP
   client (UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP sender) attempts to transfer an
   internationalized message and encounters an SMTP server that does not
   support the extension, it MUST make one of the following three
   choices and the priority order is 1, 2 and 3.

   1.  It MAY either reject the message during the SMTP transaction or
       accept the message and then generate and transmit a notification
       of non-deliverability.  Such notification MUST be done as
       specified in RFC 5321 [RFC5321], RFC 3464 [RFC3464], and the
       internationalized delivery status and disposition notifications
       specification [RFC5337bis].
   2.  If and only if the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client (sender) is a
       Message Submission Agent ("MSA") [RFC4409] [RFC5598], it MAY
       choose its own way to deal with this scenario according to the
       provisions of [RFC4409] or its future versions.  But the detailed
       specification of this process and its results are outside the
       scope of this document.
   3.  It MAY find an alternate route to the destination that permits
       UTF8SMTPbis.  That route MAY be discovered by trying alternate
       Mail eXchanger (MX) hosts (using preference rules as specified in
       RFC 5321) or using other means available to the UTF8SMTPbis-aware
       SMTP client.

   This document applies when a UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client or server
   supports the UTF8SMTPbis extension.  For all other cases, and for
   addresses and messages that do not require a UTF8SMTPbis extension,
   UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP clients and servers do not change the behavior
   specified in [RFC5321].

   If a UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server advertises the Delivery Status
   Notification (DSN) [RFC3461] extension, it MUST implement
   [RFC5337bis].

3.3.  Extended Mailbox Address Syntax

   RFC 5321, section 4.1.2, defines the syntax of a <Mailbox> entirely
   in terms of ASCII characters.  This document extends <Mailbox> to add



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   support of non-ASCII characters.

   The key changes made by this specification include:
   o  In order to update the <Mailbox> to support the internationalized
      email address, the <Mailbox> ABNF rule will be imported from RFC
      5321 directly, and other related rules are imported from RFC 5321,
      RFC 5234, RFC 5890 or RFC 5335bis, or are extended in this
      document.
   o  Extend the definition of <sub-domain> to permit both the RFC 5321
      definition and a UTF-8 string in a DNS label that is conforming
      with IDNA definitions [RFC5890].
   o  Extend the definition of <atext> to permit both the RFC 5321
      definition and a UTF-8 string.  That string MUST NOT contain any
      of the ASCII graphics or controls characters.

   The following ABNF rules imported from RFC 5321, section 4.1.2 are
   updated directly or indirectly by this document:
   o  <Mailbox>
   o  <Local-part>
   o  <Dot-string>
   o  <Quoted-string>
   o  <QcontentSMTP>
   o  <Domain>
   o  <Atom>

   The following ABNF rule will be imported from RFC 5335bis, section
   3.1 directly:
   o  <UTF8-non-ascii>

   The following ABNF rule will be imported from RFC 5234, appendix B.1
   directly:
   o  <DQUOTE>

   The following ABNF rule will be imported from RFC 5890, section 
   2.3.2.1 directly:
   o  <U-label>

   The following rules are extended in ABNF [RFC5234] as follows.













Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   sub-domain   =/  U-label
    ; extend the definition of sub-domain in RFC5321, section 4.1.2

   atext   =/  UTF8-non-ascii
    ; extend the implicit definition of atext in
    ; RFC5321, Section 4.1.2, which ultimately points to
    ; the actual definition in RFC5322, Section 3.2.3

   qtextSMTP  =/ UTF8-non-ascii
    ; extend the definition of qtextSMTP in RFC5321, section 4.1.2

   esmtp-value  =/ UTF8-non-ascii
    ; extend the definition of esmtp-value in RFC5321, section 4.1.2

3.4.  MAIL Command Parameter Usage

   If the envelope or message being sent requires the capabilities of
   the UTF8SMTPbis extension, the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client MUST
   supply the UTF8SMTPbis parameter with the MAIL command.  If this
   parameter is provided, it MUST have no value.  If the UTF8SMTPbis-
   aware SMTP client is aware that neither the envelope nor the message
   being sent requires any of the UTF8SMTPbis extension capabilities, it
   SHOULD NOT supply the UTF8SMTPbis parameter with the MAIL command.

   Because there is no guarantee that a next-hop SMTP server will
   support the UTF8SMTPbis extension, use of the UTF8SMTPbis extension
   always carries a risk of transmission failure.  In fact, during the
   early stages of deployment for the UTF8SMTPbis extension, the risk
   will be quite high.  Hence there is a distinct near-term advantage
   for ASCII-only messages to be sent without using this extension.  The
   long-term advantage of casting ASCII [ASCII] characters(0x7f and
   below) as UTF-8 form is that it permits pure-Unicode environments.

3.5.  Non-ASCII addresses and Reply-codes

   A UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client MUST NOT send an internationalized
   message to an SMTP server that does not support UTF8SMTPbis.  If the
   SMTP server does not support this option, then the UTF8SMTPbis-aware
   SMTP client has three choices according to section 3.2 of this
   specification.

   The three-digit Reply-codes used in this section are based on their
   meanings as defined in RFC 5321.

   When messages are rejected because the RCPT command requires an ASCII
   address, the reply-code 553 is returned with the meaning "mailbox
   name not allowed".  When messages are rejected because the MAIL
   command requires an ASCII address, the reply-code 550 is returned



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   with the meaning "mailbox unavailable".  When the UTF8SMTPbis-aware
   SMTP server supports enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463],
   reply-code "X.6.7" [RFC5248] (see section 4)is used, meaning that
   "non-ASCII addresses not permitted for that sender/recipient".

   When messages are rejected for other reasons, the server follows the
   model of the base email specifications in RFC 5321; this extension
   does not change those circumstances or reply messages.

   If a message is rejected after the final "." of the DATA command
   because one or more recipient is unable to accept and process a
   message with internationalized email headers, the reply-code "554" is
   used with the meaning "Transaction failed".  If the UTF8SMTPbis-aware
   SMTP server supports enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463],
   reply code "X.6.9" [RFC5248] (see section 4) is used to indicate this
   condition, meaning that "UTF-8 header message can not be transmitted
   to one or more recipients, so the message MUST be rejected".

   The UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP servers are encouraged to detect that
   recipients can not accept internationalized messages and generate an
   error after the RCPT command rather than waiting until after the DATA
   command to issue an error.

3.6.  Body Parts and SMTP Extensions

   The MAIL command parameter UTF8SMTPbis asserts that a message is an
   internationalized message or the message being sent needs the
   UTF8SMTPbis support.  There is still a chance that a message being
   sent via the MAIL command with the UTF8SMTPbis parameter is not an
   internationalized message.  A UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client or server
   that requires accurate knowledge of whether a message is
   internationalized needs to parse all message header fields and MIME
   header fields [RFC2045] in the message body.  However, this
   specification does not require that the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client
   or server inspects the message.

   Although this specification requires that UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP
   servers support the 8BITMIME extension [RFC6152] to ensure that
   servers have adequate handling capability for 8-bit data, it does not
   require non-ASCII body parts in the MIME message in RFC 2045.  The
   UTF8SMTPbis extension MAY be used with the BODY=8BITMIME parameter
   [RFC6152] if that is appropriate given the body content or, with the
   BODY=BINARYMIME parameter, if the SMTP server advertises BINARYMIME
   [RFC3030] and that is appropriate.







Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


3.7.  Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications

   The information carried in the mail transport process involves
   addresses ("mailboxes") and domain names in various contexts in
   addition to the MAIL and RCPT commands and extended alternatives to
   them.  In general, the rule is that, when RFC 5321 specifies a
   mailbox, this SMTP extension requires UTF-8 form to be used for the
   entire string.  When RFC 5321 specifies a domain name, the
   internationalized domain name SHOULD be in the form of U-label if the
   UTF8SMTPbis extension is supported; otherwise, it SHOULD be in the
   form of A-label.

   The following subsections list and discuss all of the relevant cases.

3.7.1.  The Initial SMTP Exchange

   When an SMTP connection is opened, the SMTP server sends a "greeting"
   response consisting of the 220 reply-code and some information.  The
   SMTP client then sends the EHLO command.  Since the SMTP client
   cannot know whether the SMTP server supports UTF8SMTPbis until after
   it receives the response from EHLO, the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP client
   MUST send only ASCII (LDH label or A-label [RFC5890] ) domains in the
   EHLO command and that, if the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server provides
   domain names in the EHLO response, they MUST be in the form of LDH
   labels or A-labels.

3.7.2.  Mail eXchangers

   If multiple DNS MX records are used to specify multiple servers for a
   domain in section 5 of [RFC5321], it is strongly advised that all or
   none of them SHOULD support the UTF8SMTPbis extension.  Otherwise,
   unexpected rejections can happen during temporary or permanent
   failures, which users might perceive as serious reliability issues.

3.7.3.  Trace Information

   The trace information <Return-path-line>, <Time-stamp-line> and their
   related rules are defined in in section 4.4 of RFC 5321 [RFC5321].
   This document updates <Mailbox> and <Domain> to support non-ASCII
   characters.  When the UTF8SMTPbis extension is used, the 'Reverse-
   path' clause of the Return-path-line may include an internationalized
   domain name that uses the U-label form; The 'Stamp' clause of the
   Time-stamp-line may include an internationalized domain name that
   uses the U-label form.

   If the messages that include trace fields are sent by an UTF8SMTPbis-
   aware SMTP client or relay server without the UTF8SMTPbis parameter
   at MAIL commands, trace field values must conform to RFC 5321



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   regardless of the SMTP server's capability.

   When a UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server adds a trace field to a message
   that was or will be transmitted with the UTF8SMTPbis parameter at
   MAIL commands, that server SHOULD use the U-label form for
   internationalized domain names in that new trace field.

   The protocol value of the 'WITH' clause when this extension is used
   is one of the UTF8SMTPbis values specified in the "IANA
   Considerations" section of this document.

3.7.4.  UTF-8 Strings in Replies

3.7.4.1.  MAIL Command

   If an SMTP client follows this specification and sends any MAIL
   commands containing the UTF8SMTPbis parameter, the UTF8SMTPbis-aware
   SMTP server is permitted to use UTF-8 characters in the email address
   associated with 251 and 551 reply-codes, and the SMTP client MUST be
   able to accept and process them.  If a given MAIL command does not
   include the UTF8SMTPbis parameter, the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server
   MUST NOT return a 251 or 551 response containing a non-ASCII mailbox.
   Instead, it MUST transform such responses into 250 or 550 responses
   that do not contain non-ASCII addresses.

3.7.4.2.  VRFY and EXPN Commands and the UTF8SMTPbis Parameter

   If the VRFY and EXPN commands are transmitted with the parameter
   "UTF8SMTPbis", it indicates the SMTP client can accept UTF-8 strings
   in replies to those commands.  This parameter for the VRFY and EXPN
   commands SHOULD only be used after the SMTP client sees the EHLO
   response with the UTF8SMTPbis keyword.  This allows the UTF8SMTPbis-
   aware SMTP server to use UTF-8 strings in mailbox names and full
   names that occur in replies without concern that the SMTP client
   might be confused by them.  An SMTP client that conforms to this
   specification MUST accept and correctly process replies from the VRFY
   and EXPN commands that contain UTF-8 strings.  However, the
   UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server MUST NOT use UTF-8 strings in replies
   if the SMTP client does not specifically allow such replies by
   transmitting this parameter.  Most replies do not require that a
   mailbox name be included in the returned text, and therefore UTF-8
   string is not needed in them.  Some replies, notably those resulting
   from successful execution of the VRFY and EXPN commands, do include
   the mailbox.

   VERIFY (VRFY) and EXPAND (EXPN) command syntaxes are changed to:





Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   vrfy = "VRFY" SP String
     [ SP "UTF8SMTPbis" ] CRLF
    ; String may include Non-ASCII characters

   expn = "EXPN" SP String
     [ SP "UTF8SMTPbis" ] CRLF
    ; String may include Non-ASCII characters


   The "UTF8SMTPbis" parameter does not have a value.  If the reply to a
   VERIFY (VRFY) or EXPAND (EXPN) command requires a UTF-8 string, but
   the SMTP client did not use the "UTF8SMTPbis" parameter, then the
   UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server MUST use either the reply-code 252 or
   550.  Reply-code 252, defined in [RFC5321], means "Cannot VRFY user,
   but will accept the message and attempt the delivery".  Reply-code
   550, also defined in [RFC5321], means "Requested action not taken:
   mailbox unavailable".  When the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server
   supports enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463], the enhanced
   reply-code as specified below is used.  Using the "UTF8SMTPbis"
   parameter with a VERIFY (VRFY) or EXPAND (EXPN) command enables UTF-8
   replies for that command only.

   If a normal success response (i.e., 250) is returned, the response
   MAY include the full name of the user and MUST include the mailbox of
   the user.  It MUST be in either of the following forms:

   User Name <Mailbox>
    ; Mailbox is defined in section 3.3 of this document.
    ; User Name can contain non-ASCII characters.

   Mailbox
    ; Mailbox is defined in section 3.3 of this document.

   If the SMTP reply requires UTF-8 strings, but UTF-8 string is not
   allowed in the reply, and the UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP server supports
   enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463], the enhanced reply-code
   is "X.6.8" [RFC5248] (see section 4), meaning "A reply containing a
   UTF-8 string is REQUIRED to show the mailbox name, but that form of
   response is not permitted by the SMTP client".

   If the SMTP client does not support the UTF8SMTPbis extension, but
   receives a UTF-8 string in a reply, it may not be able to properly
   report the reply to the user, and some clients might mishandle that
   reply.  Internationalized messages in replies are only allowed in the
   commands under the situations described above.

   Although UTF-8 form is needed to represent email addresses in
   responses under the rules specified in this section, this extension



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   does not permit the use of UTF-8 string for any other purposes.
   UTF8SMTPbis-aware SMTP servers MUST NOT include non-ASCII characters
   in replies except in the limited cases specifically permitted in this
   section.


4.  IANA Considerations

4.1.  SMTP Service Extensions Registry

   IANA is requested to add a new value "UTF8SMTPbis" to the SMTP
   Service Extension Registry of the Mail Parameters registry, according
   to the following data:

       +-------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
       | Keywords    | Description                     | Reference |
       +-------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
       | UTF8SMTPbis | Internationalized email address | [RFCXXXX] |
       +-------------+---------------------------------+-----------+

4.2.  SMTP Enhanced Status Code Registry

   The new code definitions in this document replace those that now
   appear in the SMTP Enhanced Status Code subregistry of the Mail
   Parameters registry, following the guidance in Sections 3.5 and
   3.7.4.2 of this document, and being based on [RFC5248].  The
   registration data is as follows:

    Code:       X.6.7
    Sample Text:    non-ASCII addresses not permitted
          for that sender/recipient
    Associated basic status code: 550, 553
    Description:    This indicates the reception of a MAIL or RCPT
              command that non-ASCII addresses are not permitted
    Defined:      RFC XXXX (Standard track)
    Submitter:     Jiankang YAO
    Change controller: ima@ietf.org














Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


    Code:       X.6.8
    Sample Text:    UTF-8 string reply is required,
              but not permitted by the SMTP client
    Associated basic status code: 252, 550, 553
    Description:    This indicates that a reply containing a UTF-8
              string is required to show the mailbox name,
    but that form of response is not
    permitted by the SMTP client.
    Defined:      RFC XXXX (Standard track)
    Submitter:     Jiankang YAO
    Change controller: ima@ietf.org


    Code:       X.6.9
    Sample Text:    UTF-8 header message can not be transferred
              to one or more recipient so the message
    must be rejected
    Associated basic status code: 550
    Description:    This indicates that transaction failed
          after the final "." of the DATA command.
    Defined:      RFC XXXX (Standard track)
    Submitter:     Jiankang YAO
    Change controller: ima@ietf.org


    Code:       X.6.10
    Description:    This is a duplicate of X.6.8 and
          is thus deprecated.

4.3.  WITH protocol types sub-registry of the Mail Transmission Types
      Registry

   IANA is requested to update or add the following entries in the "Mail
   Transmission Types" registry under the Mail Parameters registry.

   +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
   | WITH        | Description                     | Reference         |
   | protocol    |                                 |                   |
   | types       |                                 |                   |
   +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
   | UTF8SMTP    | ESMTP with UTF8SMTPbis          | [RFCXXXX]         |
   | UTF8SMTPA   | ESMTP with UTF8SMTPbis and SMTP | [RFC4954]         |
   |             | AUTH                            | [RFCXXXX]         |
   | UTF8SMTPS   | ESMTP with UTF8SMTPbis and      | [RFC3207]         |
   |             | STARTTLS                        | [RFCXXXX]         |
   | UTF8SMTPSA  | ESMTP with UTF8SMTPbis and both | [RFC3207]         |
   |             | STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH          | [RFC4954]         |
   |             |                                 | [RFCXXXX]         |



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   | UTF8LMTP    | LMTP with UTF8SMTPbis           | [RFCXXXX]         |
   | UTF8LMTPA   | LMTP with UTF8SMTPbis and SMTP  | [RFC4954]         |
   |             | AUTH                            | [RFCXXXX]         |
   | UTF8LMTPS   | LMTP with UTF8SMTPbis and       | [RFC3207]         |
   |             | STARTTLS                        | [RFCXXXX]         |
   | UTF8LMTPSA  | LMTP with UTF8SMTPbis and both  | [RFC3207]         |
   |             | STARTTLS and LMTP AUTH          | [RFC4954]         |
   |             |                                 | [RFCXXXX]         |
   +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+


5.  Security Considerations

   The extended security considerations discussion in the framework
   document [RFC4952bis] will apply here.

   More security considerations are discussed below:

   Beyond the use inside the email global system (in SMTP envelopes and
   message headers), internationalized email addresses will also show up
   inside other cases, in particular:

   o  the logging systems of SMTP transactions and other logs to monitor
      the email systems;
   o  the trouble ticket systems used by Security Teams to manage
      security incidents, when an email address is involved;

   In order to avoid problems that could cause loss of data, this will
   likely require extending these systems to support full UTF-8, or to
   require to provide an adequate mechanisms for mapping non-ASCII
   strings to ASCII.

   Another security aspect to be considered is related to the ability by
   security team members to quickly understand, read and identify email
   addresses from the logs, when they are tracking an incident.
   Mechanisms to automatically and quickly provide the origin or
   ownership of an internationalized email address SHALL be implemented
   for use also by log readers which cannot read easily non-ASCII
   information.

   The SMTP commands VRFY and EXPN are sometimes used in SMTP
   transactions where there is no message to transfer (by tools used to
   take automated actions in case potential spam messages are
   identified).  RFC 5321 section 3.5 and 7.3 give some detailed
   description of use and possible behaviours.  Implementation of
   internationalized addresses can affect also logs and actions by these
   tools.




Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


6.  Acknowledgements

   This document revised the [RFC5336]document based on the Email
   Address Internationalization (EAI) WG's discussion result.  Many EAI
   WG members did some tests and implementations to move this document
   to the Standard Track document.  Significant comments and suggestions
   were received from Xiaodong LEE, Nai-Wen Hsu, Yangwoo KO, Yoshiro
   YONEYA, and other members of the JET team and were incorporated into
   the specification.  Additional important comments and suggestions,
   and often specific text, were contributed by many members of the WG
   and design team.  Those contributions include material from John C
   Klensin, Charles Lindsey, Dave Crocker, Harald Tveit Alvestrand,
   Marcos Sanz, Chris Newman, Martin Duerst, Edmon Chung, Tony Finch,
   Kari Hurtta, Randall Gellens, Frank Ellermann, Alexey Melnikov, Pete
   Resnick, S. Moonesamy, Soobok Lee, Shawn Steele, Alfred Hoenes,
   Miguel Garcia, Magnus Westerlund, Joseph Yee and Lars Eggert.  Of
   course, none of the individuals are necessarily responsible for the
   combination of ideas represented here.

   Thanks a lot to Dave Crocker for his comments and helping of ABNF
   refinement.


7.  Change History

   [[anchor15: RFC Editor: Please remove this section.]]

7.1.  draft-yao-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00

   Applied errata suggested by Alfred Hoenes.

7.2.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00

   Applied the changes suggested by the EAI new charter.

7.3.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 01

   Applied the changes suggested by 78 IETF EAI meeting.

7.4.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 02

   remove the appendix since rfc4952bis has added this material

   improve the text

   remove the text about no body parameter





Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


7.5.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 03

   improve the text

7.6.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 04

   update the abstract

   improve the text

7.7.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 05

   improve the text based on AD and Co-chairs

7.8.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 06

   update the iana consideration

7.9.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 07

   improve the iana consideration

7.10.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 08

   improve the texts

   add the mail parameter

   add the new section about mail command parameter usage

   update the security consideration

7.11.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 09

   improve the texts

7.12.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 10

   refine the ABNF definitions

   improve the texts

7.13.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 11

   remove the update of RFC5321 and RFC5322

   change the title from "SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email
   Address" to "SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email" based on



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   Ernie's comment

   the trace field of section 3.7.3 is updated to reflect the WG's
   conclusion

   improve the texts

7.14.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 12

   Update according to Chris Newman's comments

   improve the texts

7.15.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 13

   Update the esmpt-value syntax according to Chris Newman's comments

   improve the texts

7.16.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 14

   improve the texts

7.17.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 15

   improve the texts

   updates based on IESG members' comments

7.18.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 16

   improve the texts


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [ASCII]    American National Standards Institute  (formerly United
              States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
              Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3461]  Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
              Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)",
              RFC 3461, January 2003.



Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


   [RFC3463]  Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
              RFC 3463, January 2003.

   [RFC3464]  Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
              for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
              January 2003.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC3848]  Newman, C., "ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types
              Registration", RFC 3848, July 2004.

   [RFC4409]  Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
              RFC 4409, April 2006.

   [RFC4952bis]
              Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
              Internationalized Email", I-D rfc4952bis, September 2011.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5248]  Hansen  , T. and J. Klensin, "A Registry for SMTP Enhanced
              Mail System Status Codes", RFC 5248, June 2008.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5335bis]
              Abel, Y. and S. Steel, "Internationalized Email Headers",
              I-D rfc5335bis, March 2011.

   [RFC5337bis]
              Hansen, T., Ed., Newman, C., and A. Melnikov, Ed.,
              "Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition
              Notifications", I-D 5337bis, October 2010.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalizing Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA definitions)", RFC 5890, June 2010.

   [RFC6152]  Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., and D. Crocker, "SMTP
              Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport", STD 71,
              RFC 6152, March 2011.




Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft             EAI SMTP Extension              November 2011


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2033]  Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC3030]  Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission
              of Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 3030,
              December 2000.

   [RFC3207]  Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
              Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002.

   [RFC4954]  Siemborski, R. and A. Melnikov, "SMTP Service Extension
              for Authentication", RFC 4954, July 2007.

   [RFC5336]  Yao, J. and W. Mao, "SMTP Extension for Internationalized
              Email Addresses", RFC 5336, September 2008.

   [RFC5598]  Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
              July 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   Jiankang YAO
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing

   Phone: +86 10 58813007
   Email: yaojk@cnnic.cn


   Wei MAO
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing

   Phone: +86 10 58812230
   Email: maowei_ietf@cnnic.cn







Yao & Mao                 Expires May 13, 2012                 [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/