[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-gellens-lemonade-mms-mapping)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 4356
Internet Draft: Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail R. Gellens
Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-06.txt Qualcomm
Expires: April 2006 October 2005
Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS)
and Internet Mail
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute 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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The cellular telephone industry has defined a service known as the
Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS). This service uses formats and
protocols which are similar to, but differ in key ways from, those
used in Internet mail.
One important difference between MMS and Internet Mail is that MMS
uses headers which start with "X-Mms-" to carry a variety of user
agent and server related information elements.
Gellens [Page 1] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
This document specifies how to exchange messages between these two
services, including mapping information elements as used in MMS
X-Mms-* headers as well as delivery and disposition reports, to and
from that used in SMTP and Internet message headers.
Gellens [Page 2] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Mapping Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 MMS to Internet Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 Internet Mail to MMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3 MMS Information Element Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3.1 Table 1: Information Element Mappings . . . . . . 8
2.1.3.2 Conversion of messages from MMS to Internet format 10
2.1.3.2.1 Table 2: Importance Mappings (MMS to Internet 13
2.1.3.3 Conversion of messages from Internet to MMS format 17
2.1.3.3.1 Table 4: Priority Mappings (Internet Message t 19
2.1.4 Report Generation and Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.4.1 Delivery Report Mapping from MMS to Internet Messa 22
2.1.4.1.1 Table 5: Delivery Report Mappings (MMS to Inte 23
2.1.4.2 Delivery Report Mapping from Internet Message to M 24
2.1.4.2.1 Table 6: Delivery Report Mappings (Internet Me 25
2.1.4.3 Read Report Mapping from MMS to Internet Message 26
2.1.4.3.1 Table 7: Read Report Mappings (MMS to Internet 27
2.1.4.4 Disposition Report Mapping from Internet Message t 28
2.1.4.4.1 Table 8: Disposition Report Mappings (Internet 28
2.1.5 Message Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix A: Changes Since Last Version . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Intellectual Property Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1 Introduction
1.1 Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "REQUIRED", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD
NOT", and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"
[KEYWORDS].
Gellens [Page 3] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
1.2 Scope
This document describes how to exchange messages between MMS systems
(as defined by 3GPP/3GPP2/OMA) and Internet mail systems (that is,
[SMTP] and [Msg-Fmt]). This includes the translation of message
formats, message header elements, message delivery reports and
message disposition reports ([DSN-Msg] and [MDN]).
The MMS architecture [Stage_2] and specifications [Stage_3] refer to
interfaces as reference points named MMx. For example, MM1 is the
client-server interface, MM4 is the server-server interface, and MM3
is an interface to "external" or non-MMS systems. The specification
in this document can be used for message exchange between any system
which uses Internet Message formats and protocols and an MMS system;
from the perspective of the MMS system, reference point MM3 is used.
This document includes support for voice messages specified by the
Voice Profile for Internet Mail [VPIM]. The VPIM specification
allows voice messages to be exchanged between voice mail systems
using Internet mail format [Msg-Fmt] and transported via [SMTP].
Thus, the MMS MM3 interface supports the ability to exchange voice
messages between an MMS system and a voice mail system. Note that
such use is distinct from voice media being part of a user-composed
multimedia message.
Note that MM3 can also be used for interworking with "external"
(non-MMS) systems other than Internet mail, such as Short Messaging
Service (SMS) and access to external mail stores (such as a voice
mail system). This specification does not address these other uses
or sub-interfaces of MM3; it is only concerned with Internet mail
interworking and specifically exchange of messages.
All MM3 Stage 2 [Stage_2] functions are supported except for reply
charging and sender address hiding.
1.3 Definitions
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Body |The portion of an [SMTP] message's Content
|following the Header (that is, following the
|first blank line). The Body may contain
|structured parts and sub-parts, each of which
|may have their own Header and Body. The Body
|contains information intended for the message
|recipient (human or software).
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Gellens [Page 4] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Content |The portion of an SMTP message that is
|delivered. The Content consists of a Header
|and a Body.
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Disposition Report |Feedback information to an originator User
|Agent by a recipient User Agent about
Message Disposition |handling of an original message. This may
Notification |include notification that the message was or
|was not read, was deleted unread, etc.
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Envelope |The portion of an SMTP message not included in
|the Content; that is, not in the Header nor in
|the Body. While some of it may be copied into
|the Content on delivery, envelope information
|only exists while the message is in transit,
|and contains information used by SMTP agents
|(MTAs).
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Gateway |See [SMTP], Section 2.3.8.
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Header |The first part of an SMTP message's Content.
|The Header is separated from the Body by a
|blank line. The Header consists of Fields
|(such as "To:"), also known as Header Fields
|or Headers. The message Header contains
|information used by User Agents.
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Relay/Server |An MMS server. See [Stage_2]. For purposes
|of this document, an MMS Relay/Server acts as
|a gateway when it receives or sends messages
|via Internet mail.
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
User Agent |An MMS or Email user agent
--------------------|----------------------------------------------
Gellens [Page 5] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
1.4 Abbreviations
--------|----------------------------------------------------------
MSA |Message Submission Agent. A server which accepts messages
|from User Agents and processes them; either delivering
|them locally or relaying to an MTA.
--------|----------------------------------------------------------
MTA |Mail Transfer Agent. A server which implements [SMTP].
--------|----------------------------------------------------------
1.5 Assumptions
It is assumed that the reader is already familiar with the contents
of the 3GPP2 MMS Specification Overview [Overview], MMS Stage 1
(requirements) [Stage_1] and Stage 2 (architecture and abstract
messages) [Stage_2], and 3GPP/3GPP2 Stage 3 (protocols) [Stage_3]
documents. It is also assumed that the reader is familiar with
Internet mail, especially RFC 2821 [SMTP] and RFC 2822 [Msg-Fmt].
2 Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail
This section defines the interworking between MMS Relay/Servers and
External Servers using native [SMTP]. That is, information elements
are exchanged using standard Internet Message [Msg-Fmt] header
fields and standard [SMTP] elements.
SMTP and Internet mail extensions are used for features such as
delivery reports, message expiration, discovery of server support
for optional features, etc.
2.1 Mapping Specification
2.1.1 MMS to Internet Mail
When sending a message to an Internet mail system the MMS
Relay/Server MUST convert the MM if required, and MUST comply with
the requirements of [SMTP].
The MMS Relay/Server SHOULD use the information elements associated
with the MM to define the control information (Internet Message
header fields and SMTP envelope values) needed for the transfer
protocol.
Gellens [Page 6] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Section 2.1.3 lists the mappings between X-Mms-* headers and
Internet Message header fields and SMTP values.
Delivery and read report MMs SHOULD be converted to standard
Internet Message report format (multipart/report). In addition to
converting Internet Message reports, the MMS Relay/Server MUST
generate delivery and read report MMs for received messages as
appropriate. See section 2.1.4 for more information.
2.1.2 Internet Mail to MMS
When receiving a message from an Internet mail system the MMS
Relay/Server converts incoming messages to the MM format used within
the receiving system.
The MMS Relay/Server converts control information received from the
Internet mail server into appropriate information elements of an MM.
Section 2.1.3 lists the mappings between X-Mms-* headers and
Internet Message header fields and SMTP values.
Standard Internet Message report format (multipart/report) messages
MAY be converted to delivery or read report MMs, as appropriate. In
addition to converting report MMs, implementations conforming to
this document MUST generate standard Internet Message delivery and
disposition reports for received Internet messages as appropriate.
See section 2.1.4 for more information.
Gellens [Page 7] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
2.1.3 MMS Information Element Mappings
The mappings between MMS elements and SMTP/Internet Message elements
([SMTP] parameters, [Msg-Fmt] headers, and [Dsn-Msg] fields) are
summarized in the table below, and detailed in subsequent sections.
The "MMS Headers" are from [OMA-MMS]. Note that only information
elements which need to be mapped are listed. [Msg-Fmt] headers not
listed here SHOULD be passed unaltered
2.1.3.1 Table 1: Information Element Mappings
=================|=================|================|==============
Information Elem |[SMTP] Element |[Msg-Fmt] Header|MMS Header
=================|=================|================|==============
3GPP MMS Version |N/A |N/A |X-Mms-3GPP-MMS
| | | -Version:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Message Type |N/A |N/A |X-Mms-Message-
(of PDU) | | | Type:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Transaction ID |N/A |N/A |X-Mms-Transact
| | | ion-Id:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Message ID |N/A |Message-ID: |Message-ID:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Recipient |RCPT TO |To:, Cc:, or |To:, Cc:, Bcc:
address(es) |address(es) |omitted (Bcc) |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Sender's address |MAIL FROM |From: |From:
|address if | |
|user-originated; | |
|MUST set MAIL | |
|FROM to null | |
|("<>") for all | |
|automatically- | |
|generated MMs | |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Content type |N/A |Content-Type: |Content-type:
| | |
| |For voice mes- |
| |sages compliant |
| |to [VPIM], see |
| |Note 2 |
=================|=================|================|==============
Gellens [Page 8] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
=================|=================|================|==============
Information Elem |[SMTP] Element |[Msg-Fmt] Header|MMS Header
=================|=================|================|==============
Message class |Class=auto: |MAY set 'Prece |X-Mms-Message-
|MUST set MAIL | dence: bulk' | Class:
|FROM to null |on class=auto |
|("<>"). | |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Date and time |N/A |Date: |Date:
of submission | | |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Time of expiry |DELIVER-BY |N/A |X-Mms-Expiry:
|[Deliver-By] | |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Earliest deliv- |(only for submis-|N/A |X-Mms-Delivery
ery time |sion; not relay) | | -Time:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Delivery report |DSN [DSN-SMTP] |N/A |X-Mms-Delivery
request |SHOULD also | | -Report:
|specify recip- | |
|ient address as | |
|ORCPT; SHOULD | |
|also specify | |
|ENVID | |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Importance (a/k/a|N/A |Importance: |X-Mms-
"priority") | | | Priority:
| | |
| | |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Sender visib- |(not currently |(not currently |X-Mms-Sender-
ility |supported) |supported) | Visibility:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Read reply |N/A |Disposition- |X-Mms-Read-
request | | Notification | Reply:
| | -To: [MDN] |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Reply-charging |(not currently |(not currently |X-Mms-Reply-
permission |supported) |supported) | Charging:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Reply-charging |(not currently |(not currently |X-Mms-Reply-
permission |supported) |supported) | Charging-
deadline | | | Deadline:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Reply-charging |(not currently |(not currently |X-Mms-Reply-
permission |supported) |supported) | Charging-
limitation | | | Size:
=================|=================|================|==============
Gellens [Page 9] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
=================|=================|================|==============
Information Elem |[SMTP] Element |[Msg-Fmt] Header|MMS Header
=================|=================|================|==============
Reply charging |(not currently |(not currently |X-Mms-Reply-
usage request |supported) |supported) | Charging-
| | | Id:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Reply charging |(not currently |(not currently |X-Mms-Reply-
usage reference |supported) |supported) | Charging:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Subject |N/A |Subject: |Subject:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Previously-sent |N/A |Resent-From: |X-Mms-Previous
by | | | ly-Sent-By:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Previously-sent |N/A |Resent-Date: |X-Mms-
date | | | Previously-
| | | Sent-Date-
| | | and-Time:
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Hop/host trace |N/A |Received: |(Not sup-
| | |ported)
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Sensitivity |N/A |Sensitivity: see|N/A
| |Note 1 |
_________________|_________________|________________|______________
Content |N/A |<message body> |<message body>
=================|=================|================|==============
Note 1: The [VPIM] 'Sensitivity' header element indicates the
privacy requested by the message originator (values are "personal"
or "private"); per [VPIM], a message recipient MUST NOT forward a
message with a 'Sensitivity' header. Since sensitivity is not an
MMS feature, any messages which contain a 'Sensitivity:' header
SHOULD NOT be sent to an MMS system.
Note 2: [VPIM] specifies how conforming messages are identified.
2.1.3.2 Conversion of messages from MMS to Internet format
3GPP MMS Version
The 'X-Mms-3GPP-MMS-Version:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
Message Type (of PDU)
Gellens [Page 10] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
The 'X-Mms-Message-Type:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
Transaction ID
The 'X-Mms-Transaction-Id:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
Message ID
The 'Message-Id:' header MUST be retained. If not present it MUST
be created, with a unique value, per [Msg-Fmt].
To facilitate the case where an MMS message traverses the Internet
prior to returning to an MMS system, implementations might wish to
retain the 'X-Mms-Message-Id:' header. Such systems should be aware
that headers which begin with "X-" might be removed during transit
through Internet MTAs.
Recipient(s) address
The address of each recipient MUST be transmitted in the [SMTP]
envelope as a RCPT TO value. All disclosed recipients SHOULD also
appear in a 'To:' or 'Cc:' header. At least one 'To:', 'Cc:', or
'Bcc:' header MUST be present. If none are present, a 'To:' header
SHOULD be created using empty group syntax whose name gives an
indication to a human reader, for example 'To:
undisclosed-recipients:;'.
The 'To:' header SHOULD NOT appear more than once. The 'Cc:' header
SHOULD NOT appear more than once.
Each recipient address MUST obey the length restrictions per [SMTP].
Current Internet message format requires that only 7-bit US-ASCII
characters be present in headers. Non-7-bit characters in an
address domain must be encoded with [IDN]. If there are any
Non-7-bit characters in the local part of an address, the message
MUST be rejected. Non-7-bit characters elsewhere in a header MUST
be encoded according to [Hdr-Enc].
All recipient addresses in the [SMTP] envelope must be
fully-qualified in accordance with [SMTP]. In particular, messages
MUST NOT be sent to an Internet mail system with an unqualified
E.164 number (i.e., a number with no domain) instead of a
fully-qualified domain name.
All addresses in 'To:', 'Cc:', and 'Bcc:' headers MUST be in the
form of fully-qualified domains. Unqualified E.164 numbers MUST NOT
be used.
Gellens [Page 11] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Sender address
The address of the message sender SHOULD appear in the 'From:'
header.
The address of the message sender for all user-generated messages
('X-Mms-Message-Class: Personal') SHOULD be transmitted in the
[SMTP] envelope as the MAIL FROM value.
The return addresses in the [SMTP] envelope must be fully-qualified
in accordance with [SMTP]. In particular, messages MUST NOT be sent
to an Internet mail system with an E.164 number instead of a
fully-qualified domain name. Note that qualified E.164 numbers,
that is, those that contain an E.164 number as the local-part of an
address that also includes a domain, are acceptable.
The address(es) in the 'From:' header SHOULD be in the form of
fully-qualified domains. Unqualified E.164 numbers SHOULD NOT be
used.
Because of the risk of mail loops, it is critical that the MAIL FROM
be set to null ("<>") for all automatically-generated MMs (such as
'X-Mms-Message-Class: Auto'). The MAIL FROM value MUST be set to
null for all automatically-generated messages. This includes
reports, "out-of-office" replies, etc.
Current Internet message format requires that only 7-bit US-ASCII
characters be present in headers. Non-7-bit characters in an
address domain must be encoded with [IDN]. If there are any
Non-7-bit characters in the local part of an address, the message
MUST be rejected. Non-7-bit characters elsewhere in a header MUST
be encoded according to [Hdr-Enc]. Note that it would be possible
to define an [SMTP] extension to permit transmission of unencoded
8-bit characters, but in the absence of such an extension [Hdr-Enc]
MUST be used.
The sender address MUST obey the length restrictions of [SMTP].
Content type
The 'Content-Type:' header SHOULD be preserved.
Message class
The 'X-Mms-Message-Class:' header MAY be retained in order to
provide information on the source of the message. A 'Precedence:
bulk' header MAY be inserted for class=auto or class=advertisement.
See 'Sender Address' above. (Class=personal and class=informational
do not require special handling.)
Gellens [Page 12] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Time of Expiry
The 'X-Mms-Expiry:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
The remaining time until the message is considered expired SHOULD be
transmitted in the [SMTP] envelope by using the DELIVER-BY extension
with a by-mode of "R", as specified in [Deliver-By].
Note that the [SMTP] DELIVER-BY extension carries time remaining
until expiration; each server decrements the value by the amount of
time it has possessed the message. The 'X-Mms-Expiry:' header may
contain either the absolute time at which the message is considered
expired or the relative time until the message is considered
expired.
Earliest delivery time
The 'X-Mms-Delivery-Time:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
Future delivery is a message submission, not message relay feature.
Delivery report request
Requests for delivery status notifications (DSNs) SHOULD be
transmitted in the [SMTP] envelope by using the DSN extension as
specified in [DSN-SMTP] to request "success" or "none" notification
(depending on the value of the 'X-Mms-Delivery-Report' header).
When the NOTIFY extension is used, the unaltered recipient address
SHOULD be transmitted as the ORCPT value.
The 'X-Mms-Delivery-Report:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
Importance
The message sender's importance value (also called "priority",
although this can be confused with class-of-service values) SHOULD
be transmitted using an 'Importance:' header.
Suggested mappings:
2.1.3.2.1 Table 2: Importance Mappings (MMS to Internet Message)
---------------------------|------------------
'X-Mms-Priority: High' |'Importance: High'
---------------------------|------------------
'X-Mms-Priority: Normal' |[omit]
---------------------------|------------------
'X-Mms-Priority: Low' |'Importance: Low'
---------------------------|------------------
Gellens [Page 13] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Normal importance messages should omit the 'Importance:' header.
The 'X-Mms-Priority:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
Sender visibility
Support for sender address hiding is not currently supported.
A message that contains an 'X-Mms-Sender-Visibility:' header with a
value of 'Hide' SHOULD be rejected.
The 'X-Mms-Sender-Visibility:' header, if present, SHOULD be
removed.
Read reply request
A request for a read reply SHOULD be transmitted using a
'Disposition-Notification-To:' header as specified in [MDN].
The 'X-Mms-Read-Reply:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
Reply-charging
Reply charging permission and acceptance are complex issues
requiring both user agent and server support. Misapplied reply
charging may cause incorrect billing. Until the security issues
have been properly addressed, reply charging SHOULD NOT be honored
when using this interface.
The 'X-Mms-Reply-Charging:', 'X-Mms-Reply-Charging-Deadline:',
'X-Mms-Reply-Charging-Size:', and 'X-Mms-Reply-Charging-Id:' headers
MAY be removed. Messages containing a reply-charging usage request
('X-Mms-Reply-Charging-Id:' and 'X-Mms-Reply-Charging: accepted' or
'X-Mms-Reply-Charging: accepted (text only)' headers) SHOULD be
rejected.
Subject
The 'Subject:' header MUST be preserved. Current Internet message
format requires that only 7-bit US-ASCII characters be present.
Other characters MUST be encoded according to [Hdr-Enc]. Note that
it is possible for an [SMTP] extension to be defined which would
permit transmission of unencoded 8-bit characters, but in the
absence of such an extension [Hdr-Enc] MUST be used.
Resending
Gellens [Page 14] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
A message may be resent to one or more new recipients; it may be
resent more than once; each time new 'Resent-' headers are added at
the top of the existing headers. Thus, if more than one series of
'Resent-' headers are present, the original series is the last; the
most recent is the first.
Forward counter
An 'X-Mms-Forward-Counter:' header, if present, SHOULD be removed.
The 'Resent-Count:' header is NOT RECOMMENDED. Loop control is
usually done by counting 'Received' headers, which are more general
than 'Resent-' headers.
Previously-Sent Information
MMS lists the resending history of a message in two headers:
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:' and
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:'. 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:'
contains a number followed by one or more addresses.
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:' contains a number followed by
a date-time. With both headers, the number "0" is used for the
entry that corresponds to the original submission of the message,
with higher values being used for each subsequent resending. The
final (most recent) resending information is in the 'From:' and
'Date:' headers. There is also an 'X-Mms-Forward-Counter:' that
indicates how many times the message has been resent.
Any 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:',
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:', and 'X-Mms-Forward-Counter:'
headers, if present, SHOULD be removed. The information contained
in them SHOULD be translated into [Msg-Fmt] headers as follows:
The 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:' header whose value starts
with "0" SHOULD be used to create a 'Date:' header, converting the
date and time from HTTP-date [HTTP] to date-time [Msg-Fmt]. The
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:' header whose value starts with "0"
SHOULD be used to create a 'From:' header.
A 'To:' header SHOULD be created using list syntax with a value of
"unrecoverable-recipients" and no mailboxes.
A 'Message-ID:' header SHOULD be created.
Any 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:' headers whose value
starts with "1" or a larger value are mapped to 'Resent-Date:'
headers. Any 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:' headers whose value starts
with "1" or a larger value are mapped to 'Resent-By:' headers.
Gellens [Page 15] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
The 'From:', 'To:', 'Date:', and 'Message-ID:' headers are mapped to
'Resent-From:', 'Resent-To:', 'Resent-Date:', and
'Resent-Message-ID:' headers in the top-most block of 'Resent-*'
headers.
Example:
The MMS message:
X-Mms-Forward-Counter: 2
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time: 0, Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:02:03 GMT
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By: 0, General Failure <mfail@example.mil>
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time: 1, Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:02:03 GMT
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By: 1, Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:02:03 -0800
From: L. Eva Message <lem@example.org>
To: b1ff@mms.example.com
Message-ID: <99887766.112233@mail.example.org>
is mapped to an Internet mail message:
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:02:03 -0800
Resent-From: L. Eva Message <lem@example.org>
Resent-To: b1ff@mms.example.com
Resent-Message-ID: <99887766.112233@mail.example.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 08:02:03 +0000
Resent-From: Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:02:03 +0000
From: General Failure <mfail@example.mil>
To: Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Message-ID: <000.000.000@gateway.example.org>
'Received:' Headers
When a message is gatewayed from MMS to Internet mail, a 'Received:'
header MUST be added as per [SMTP]. The "with" clause should
specify "MMS".
A message MAY be rejected if the number of 'Received:' headers
exceeds a locally-defined maximum, which MUST conform to [SMTP]
section 6.2 and SHOULD be no less than 100.
Privacy
Note that MMS systems do not currently support the 'Privacy' header
field as described by [VPIM].
Gellens [Page 16] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Content
The message content appears in the message body. Note that Internet
message format requires that line-endings be encoded as US-ASCII CR
LF octets, thus charset encodings that do not have this property
cannot be used in text/* body parts. (They may be used in other body
parts, but only when they are suitably encoded or when binary
transmission has been negotiated.) In particular, MMS allows UTF-16,
while Internet message format does not. UTF-16 encoding MUST be
translated to UTF-8 or another charset and encoding which is
suitable for use in Internet message format/protocols.
2.1.3.3 Conversion of messages from Internet to MMS format
3GPP MMS Version
An 'X-Mms-3GPP-MMS-Version:' header SHOULD be added.
Message Type (of PDU)
An 'X-Mms-Message-Type:' header SHOULD be used in accordance with
the specific MMS interface (e.g., MM1, MM4).
Transaction ID
An 'X-Mms-Transaction-Id:' header SHOULD be used in accordance with
the specific MMS interface (e.g., MM1, MM4).
Message ID
The 'Message-Id:' header MUST be retained. If not present it MUST
be created, with a unique value.
Recipient(s) address
'To:' and 'Cc:' headers MUST be retained.
Each recipient contained in the [SMTP] envelope (RCPT TO values)
MUST be considered a recipient of the message. Recipients who
appear in address headers but not the [SMTP] envelope MUST be
ignored. Recipients who appear in the [SMTP] envelope but do not
appear in headers are considered "blind" (Bcc) recipients; such
recipients MUST NOT be added to message headers (including address
and trace headers) unless there is only one recipient total.
Gellens [Page 17] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Sender address
The 'From:' header MUST be retained.
Content type
The complete 'Content-Type:' header (including any parameters)
SHOULD be preserved.
Message class
An 'X-Mms-Message-Class: personal' header MAY be created for all
received messages with a non-null return path (MAIL FROM value in
the SMTP envelope). An 'X-Mms-Message-Class: auto' header MAY be
created for messages with a null return path.
Time of Expiry
An 'X-Mms-Expiry:' header SHOULD be created if the message contains
a relative time to expiration in the DELIVER-BY extension with a
by-mode of "R", as specified in [Deliver-By].
If the by-mode is "N", a "relayed" DSN MUST be issued per
[Deliver-By] and an 'X-Mms-Expiry:' header SHOULD NOT be created.
Earliest delivery time
An 'X-Mms-Delivery-Time:' header SHOULD NOT be created.
Delivery report request
An 'X-Mms-Delivery-Report:' header SHOULD be created for messages
which request 'success' or 'none' delivery status notification by
use of the DSN extension as specified in [DSN-SMTP]. Requests for
'delay' notifications or non-default actions, such as that only the
message headers should be returned, cannot be mapped onto MMS
headers and thus SHOULD be ignored.
Importance
The message sender's importance value (also called "priority",
although this can be confused with class-of-service values) is
expressed with an 'Importance:' header. Historically, some clients
used the older and non-standard 'X-Priority:' header for this
purpose. As a result, some clients generate both.
Gellens [Page 18] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
An 'X-Priority:' or 'Importance:' header, if present, SHOULD be
replaced with an 'X-Mms-Priority:' header. If both headers are
present, 'Importance:' SHOULD be used. Suggested mappings:
2.1.3.3.1 Table 4: Priority Mappings (Internet Message to MMS)
-------------------------------|----------------------
'X-Priority: 1 (highest)' |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
-------------------------------|----------------------
'X-Priority: 2 (high)' |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
-------------------------------|----------------------
'Importance: High' |'X-Mms-Priority: High'
-------------------------------|----------------------
'X-Priority: 3 (normal)' | [omitted]
-------------------------------|----------------------
'Importance: Normal' | [omitted]
-------------------------------|----------------------
'X-Priority: 4 (low)' |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
-------------------------------|----------------------
'Importance: Low' |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
-------------------------------|----------------------
'X-Priority: 5 (lowest)' |'X-Mms-Priority: Low'
-------------------------------|----------------------
Normal importance messages SHOULD omit the 'X-Mms-Priority:' header.
Sender visibility
Support for sender address hiding is not currently supported.
Read reply request
A request for a read reply contained in a
'Disposition-Notification-To:' header as specified in [MDN] SHOULD
be replaced with an 'X-Mms-Read-Reply:' header.
Subject
The 'Subject:' header MUST be preserved.
Resending
Mapping from 'Resent-' and other [Msg-Fmt] headers to
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-' headers SHOULD be done as follows:
The original 'From:' header is mapped to an
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:' header with a leading "0" value. The
value of the top-most 'Resent-From:' header is mapped to the 'From:'
header. The value of each subsequent 'Resent-From:' header is
Gellens [Page 19] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
mapped to an 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:' header with the next larger
leading value.
The original 'Date:' header is mapped to
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:' header with a leading "0"
value. Note that the value is also converted from date-time syntax
[Msg-Fmt] to HTTP-date syntax [HTTP]. The value of the top-most
'Resent-Date:' header is mapped to the 'Date:' header. The value of
each subsequent 'Date:' header is mapped to an
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:' header with the next larger
leading value.
If one or more 'Resent-Message-ID:' headers are present, the
top-most one SHOULD be mapped to 'Message-ID:'; otherwise the
'Message-ID:' header should be retained.
An 'X-Mms-Forward-Counter:' header SHOULD be created when 'Resent-'
headers have been mapped to 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-' headers. Its
value SHOULD be the number of 'Resent-' blocks that existed prior to
mapping.
Example:
The original message:
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:02:03 -0800
From: General Failure <mfail@example.mil>
To: Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Message-ID: <msg123@mail.example.mil>
Is resent by Colonel Corn to L. Eva Message:
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:02:03 -0800
Resent-From: Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Resent-To: L. Eva Message <lem@example.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <msg234@mail.example.mil>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:02:03 -0800
From: General Failure <mfail@example.mil>
To: Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Message-ID: <msg123@mail.example.mil>
L. Eva then resends to her MMS device:
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:02:03 -0800
Resent-From: L. Eva Message <lem@example.org>
Resent-To: b1ff@mms.example.com
Resent-Message-ID: <99887766.112233@mail.example.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:02:03 -0800
Resent-From: Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Gellens [Page 20] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Resent-To: L. Eva Message <lem@example.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <msg234@mail.example.mil>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:02:03 -0800
From: General Failure <mfail@example.mil>
To: Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Message-ID: <msg123@mail.example.mil>
This would be mapped to an MMS message as:
X-Mms-Forward-Counter: 2
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time: 0, Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:02:03 GMT
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By: 0, General Failure <mfail@example.mil>
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time: 1, Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:02:03 GMT
X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By: 1, Colonel Corn <gcorn@example.mil>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:02:03 -0800
From: L. Eva Message <lem@example.org>
To: b1ff@mms.example.com
Message-ID: <99887766.112233@mail.example.org>
Note that the original 'From:' and 'Date:' values were moved to
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-By:' and
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:' headers with a leading "0"
value. The first 'Resent-From:' and 'Resent-Date:' values were
moved to a second set of 'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-' headers, with a
leading "1" value. The third set of 'Resent-' headers were moved to
the 'Date:', 'To:', and 'From:' headers.
Note also that the format of the date and time differs between the
'Date:' / 'Resent-Date:' and the
'X-Mms-Previously-Sent-Date-and-Time:' headers, in that the latter
use HTTP-date [HTTP] instead of date-time [Msg-Fmt].
'Received:' Headers
Each system that processes a message SHOULD add a 'Received:' header
as per [SMTP]. A message MAY be rejected if the number of
'Received:' headers exceeds a locally-defined maximum, which MUST
conform to [SMTP] section 6.2 and SHOULD be no less than 100.
Sensitivity
The 'Sensitivity:' header field (value = "personal" or "private")
[VPIM] indicates the desire of a voice message originator to send
the message contents to the original recipient list with assurance
that the message will not be forwarded further by either the
messaging system or the actual message recipient(s). Since
sensitivity is not an MMS feature, any messages which contain a
'Sensitivity:' header MUST NOT be sent to an MMS system. The
associated negative delivery status report MUST include the extended
Gellens [Page 21] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
status code [RESP] 5.6.0 as specified in [VPIM] ("Other or undefined
protocol status") indicating that privacy could not be assured.
Content
The message content appears in the message body.
2.1.4 Report Generation and Conversion
Internet Message systems use the multipart/report MIME type for
delivery and disposition reports as specified in [Report-Fmt]. This
format is a two- or three-part MIME message; one part is a
structured format describing the event being reported in an
easy-to-parse format. Specific reports have a format which is built
on [Report-Fmt]. Delivery reports are specified in [DSN-Msg].
Message disposition reports, which include read reports, are
specified in [MDN].
By contrast, MMS reports are plain text, with no defined structure
specified. This makes it difficult to convert from an MMS report to
a standard Internet report.
An implementation conforming to this specification MUST convert
reports received from one side (MMS or Internet mail) destined for
the other. In addition, reports MUST be generated as appropriate
for messages received from either side. For example, if an MM to be
sent via Internet mail is not deliverable, a delivery status MM
shall be generated. Likewise, if an Internet message is received
that cannot be further relayed or delivered, a delivery status
report [DSN-Msg] MUST be generated.
When creating delivery or disposition reports from MMS reports, the
MMS report should be parsed to determine the reported event and
time, status, and the headers of the referenced (original) message.
These elements, once determined, are used to populate the subparts
of the delivery or disposition report. The first subpart is of type
text/plain, and contains a human-readable explanation of the event.
This text may include a statement that the report was synthesized
based on an MMS report. The second subpart is of type
report/delivery-status (for delivery reports) or
report/disposition-notification (for disposition reports). This
second part contains a structured itemization of the event. The
optional third subpart is of type message/rfc822 and includes the
headers and optionally the body of the referenced (original)
message. Note that, per [Dsn-Msg], the 'DSN-Gateway:' field in
delivery reports MUST be created.
Gellens [Page 22] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
2.1.4.1 Delivery Report Mapping from MMS to Internet Message
The following table maps information elements from MMS delivery
reports to the format specified in [DSN-Msg].
2.1.4.1.1 Table 5: Delivery Report Mappings (MMS to Internet Message)
======================|============|===================================
Information Element |MMS Delivery|[DSN-Msg] Element
|Report Elem |
======================|============|===================================
ID of message whose |Message-Id: |'Message-ID:' preserved in third
delivery status is | |subpart of delivery report.
being reported | |
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Recipient address of |From: |'Final-Recipient' field of the
the original message | |per-recipient section.
(object of delivery | |
report) | |
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Destination address of|To: |'To:' header field value of top-
report | |level.
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Date and time the |Date: |'Date:' header field value of top-
message was handled | |level
======================|============|===================================
Gellens [Page 23] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
======================|============|===================================
Information Element |MMS Delivery|[DSN-Msg] Element
|Report Elem |
======================|============|===================================
Delivery status of |X-Mms- |Action and Status fields of
original message to | Status: |per-recipient section.
each recipient | |
| |The 'Action' field indicates if the
| |message was delivered.
| |
| |For failed delivery an appropriate
| |'Status' value shall be included
| |per [DSN-Msg].
| |
| |The Action field is set to one of
| |the following values:
| |
| |* delivered (used for MMS status
| |values 'retrieved' and 'rejected',
| |depending on 'Status' code).
| |
| |* failed (used for MMS status
| |values 'expired' and 'unreachable')
| |
| |* delayed MAY be used for MMS
| |status value 'deferred'
| |
| |* relayed (used for MMS status
| |value 'indeterminate')
| |
| |* expanded (SHOULD NOT be used)
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Status Text | |Text in first part (human-readable
| |part)
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
When an MMS Relay/Server generates a [DSN-Msg] in response to a
message received using [SMTP] on MM3:
* Top-level header field 'To:' SHOULD be the [SMTP] return-path of
the message whose status is being reported.
* Top-level header field 'From:' SHOULD be the address of the
recipient that the delivery-report concerns.
* The first part of the [DSN-Msg] SHOULD include the MM Status Text
field that would have been generated for an MM1 delivery-report.
Gellens [Page 24] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
2.1.4.2 Delivery Report Mapping from Internet Message to MMS
The following table maps information elements from a delivery report
as specified in [DSN-Msg] to the format of an MMS delivery report.
Note that a single DSN which reports multiple recipients will result
in several MMS delivery reports.
2.1.4.2.1 Table 6: Delivery Report Mappings (Internet Message to MMS)
===================|==================|================================
Information Element|MMS Delivery |[DSN-Msg] Element
|Report Element |
===================|==================|================================
ID of the original |Message-Id: |'Message-ID:' header preserved
message (object of | |in third sub-part of report.
delivery report) | |
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Recipient address |From: |If available, the 'Original
of the original | |-Recipient' field of the per-
message (object of | |recipient section should be
delivery report) | |used; otherwise the 'Final-
| |Recipient' field of the per-
| |recipient section is used
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Destination address|To: |'To:' header field value of
of report | |top-level.
| |
| |Value taken from [SMTP] envelope
| |return-path of message being
| |reported, not its 'From:' header
| |field.
===================|==================|================================
Gellens [Page 25] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
===================|==================|================================
Information Element|MMS Delivery |[DSN-Msg] Element
|Report Element |
===================|==================|================================
Date and time the |Date: |'Date:' header field value of
message was handled| |top-level
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Delivery status of |X-Mms-Status: |'Action' and 'Status' fields of
original message | |per-recipient section
|Set to one of the |
|following values: |
| |
|'retrieved' (used |
|for 'Action' value|
|'delivered'). |
| |
|'unreachable' |
|(used for 'Action'|
|value 'failed') |
| |
|'forwarded' (used |
|for 'Action' value|
|'relayed') |
| |
|'deferred' MUST |
|NOT be used |
|(ignore DSNs with |
|'Action' value |
|'delayed') |
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Status Text | |Text in first part (human-
| |readable part)
===================|==================|================================
Gellens [Page 26] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
2.1.4.3 Read Report Mapping from MMS to Internet Message
The following table maps information elements from MMS read reports
to the format specified in [MDN].
2.1.4.3.1 Table 7: Read Report Mappings (MMS to Internet Message)
======================|============|===================================
Information Element |MMS Delivery|[MDN] Element
|Report Elem |
======================|============|===================================
ID of the original |Message-Id: |'Message-ID:' header preserved in
message (object of | |third part of report.
read report) | |
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Recipient address of |From: |'Final-Recipient' field
the original message | |
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Destination address of|To: |'To:' header field value of top-
report | |level.
| |
| |Value taken from 'Disposition-
| |Notification-To:' header field of
| |message being reported, not its
| |'From:' header field.
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Date and time the |Date: |'Date:' header field value of top-
message was handled | |level
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Disposition of message|X-Mms-Read- |Disposition-field
being reported | Status: |
| |For X-MMS-Read-Status value 'read',
| |use 'disposition-type' value
| |'displayed'; for X-MMS-Read-Status
| |value 'Deleted without being read',
| |use 'disposition-type' value
| |'deleted')
----------------------|------------|-----------------------------------
Status Text | |Text in first part (human-readable
| |part)
======================|============|===================================
When an MMS Relay/Server generates an [MDN] in response to a message
received using [SMTP] on MM3:
* Top-level header field 'To:' SHOULD be the value of the
'Disposition-Notification-To:' header field of the message whose
disposition is being reported .
Gellens [Page 27] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
* Top-level header field 'From:' SHOULD be the address of the
recipient that the read report concerns.
2.1.4.4 Disposition Report Mapping from Internet Message to MMS
The following table maps information elements from a disposition
report as specified in [MDN] to the format of an MMS read report.
2.1.4.4.1 Table 8: Disposition Report Mappings (Internet Message to
MMS)
===================|==================|================================
Information Element|MMS Read Report |[MDN] Element
|Element |
===================|==================|================================
ID of the original |Message-Id: |'Message-ID:' header preserved
message (object of | |in third subpart of report.
disposition report)| |
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Recipient address |From: |'Final-Recipient' field
of the original | |
message | |
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Destination address|To: |'To:' header field value of
of report | |top-level.
| |
| |Value taken from 'Disposition-
| |Notification-To:' header field
| |of message being reported, not
| |its 'From:' header field.
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Date and time the |Date: |'Date:' header field value of
message was handled| |top-level
===================|==================|================================
Gellens [Page 28] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
===================|==================|================================
Information Element|MMS Read Report |[MDN] Element
|Element |
===================|==================|================================
Disposition of |X-Mms-Read-Status:|disposition-field
message being | |
reported |Set to one of the |
|following values: |
| |
|'read' (used for |
|disposition-type |
|value 'displayed')|
| |
|'Deleted without |
|being read' (used |
|for disposition- |
|types 'deleted', |
|'denied' and |
|'failed' when |
|action-mode is |
|'automatic- |
|action') |
-------------------|------------------|--------------------------------
Status Text | |Text in first part (human-
| |readable part)
===================|==================|================================
2.1.5 Message Delivery
Within Internet mail, when [SMTP] is used and delivery reports are
requested [DSN-SMTP], delivery is considered to be acceptance of a
message by the final server, that is, the server closest to the
recipient. When an MMS Relay/Server receives a message using [SMTP]
and a delivery report is requested, the MMS Relay/Server MAY
consider the message delivered when it has been sent to the MMS User
Agent.
3 Security Considerations
Both MMS and Internet mail have their own set of security risks and
considerations. This document specifies how to exchange messages
between these two environments, so it is only appropriate to discuss
considerations specific to this functionality, not those inherent in
either environment.
Gellens [Page 29] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
When a message uses end-to-end security mechanisms such as [PGP] or
S/MIME [SMIME], servers MUST be careful not to accidently destroy
the integrity of the protected content (for example, by altering any
text within the region covered by a signature while mapping between
MMS and email). [Mime-Sec-gw] discusses issues with use of such
mechanisms in gateways.
Some MMS features contain inherently more risk than others,
including reply charging and sender address hiding. Support for
these mechanisms are not included in this document.
4 IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to add "MMS" as a "WITH protocol types" under its
"MAIL Parameters" registry. The description is "Multimedia
Messaging Service"; the reference is to this document.
5 Acknowledgments
A number of people contributed to this document, especially the
members of the IETF Lemonade group, including Greg Vaudreuil. John
Klensin did a very thorough and helpful review. Greg White caught a
large number of nits. Ted Hardie was very helpful. Alexey Melnikov
and Chris Newman sent very useful and detailed comments.
6 Normative References
IETF:
[DSN-Msg] "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status
Notifications", Moore, Vaudreuil, RFC 3464, January 2003.
[DSN-SMTP] "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
Notifications", Moore, RFC 3461, January 2003.
[Hdr-Enc] "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three:
Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", Moore, RFC 2047,
November 1996.
[HTTP] "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", Fielding et al,
RFC 2616, June 1999.
[IDN] "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
Faltstrom, Hoffman, Costello, RFC 3490, March 2003.
Gellens [Page 30] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997.
[MDN] "Message Disposition Notification", Hansen, Vaudreuil, RFC
3798, May 2004.
[Msg-Fmt] "Internet Message Format", Resnick, RFC 2822, April 2001.
[Report-Fmt] "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of
Mail System Administrative Messages", Vaudreuil, RFC 3462, January
2003
[RESP] "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", Vaudreuil, RFC 3463,
January 2003.
[SMTP] "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", Klensin, RFC 2821, April
2001.
OMA:
OMA specifications are available at the OMA web site
<http://www.openmobilealliance.org>.
[OMA-MMS] OMA-WAP-MMS-ENC-V1_2-20040323-C
3GPP2 and 3GPP:
3GPP2 specifications are available at the 3GPP2 (Third
Generation Partnership Project 2) web site
<http://www.3gpp2.org>.
3GPP specifications are available at the 3GPP (Third Generation
Partnership Project) web site <http://www.3gpp.org>
[Stage_3] "MMS MM1 Stage 3 using OMA/WAP", X.S0016-310
"MMS MM4 Stage 3 Inter-Carrier Interworking", X.S0016-340
"Multimedia Messaging Service: Functional description; Stage 2", TS
23.140 Release 5.
7 Informative References
IETF:
Gellens [Page 31] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
[BINARY] SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large and
Binary MIME Messages", Vaudreuil, Parsons, RFC 3030, December 2000.
[Codes] "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes",
Freed, RFC 2034, October 1996.
[Deliver-By] "Deliver By SMTP Service Extension", Newman, RFC 2852,
June 2000.
[Hdrs] "Common Internet Message Headers", J. Palme, RFC 2076,
February 1997.
[Mime-Sec-gw] "Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts", N. Freed, RFC
2480, January 1999.
[PGP] "MIME Security with OpenPGP", Elkins, Del Torto, Levien,
Roessler, RFC 3156, August 2001
[SMIME] "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", Ramsdell, RFC
2633, June 1999
[Submission] "Message Submission", Gellens, Klensin, RFC 2476,
December 1998.
[VPIM] "Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version 2 (VPIMv2)",
Vaudreuil, Parsons, RFC 3801, June 2004.
[Formats] "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) Media Format and
Codecs for cdma2000 Spread Spectrum Systems", C.S0045
[Overview] "Multimedia Messaging Services (MMS) Overview",
X.S0016-000
[Stage_1] "Multimedia Messaging Services (MMS); Stage 1",
Requirements, October 2002, S.R0064-0.
[Stage_2] "Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Stage 2", Functional
Specification, April 2003, X.S0016-200.
"Multimedia Messaging Service; Media formats and codecs",
TS26.140Release 5.
8 Author's Address
Randall Gellens
QUALCOMM Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
Gellens [Page 32] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
randy@qualcomm.com
Appendix A: Changes Since Last Version
[ This section to be deleted upon publication ]
Changes from -05 to -06:
o Editorial cleanups
o Clarified that X-Priority is an older, non-standard header.
Clarified that if both X-Priority and Importance appear,
Importance SHOULD be used.
o Clarified text regarding E.164 numbers
o Changed SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT on unqualified E.164 numbers in
address headers (otherwise messages are non-replyable)
o Deleted X-Priority mapping table from MMS to Internet Mail
o Deleted wording (accidently pasted) in table on Delivery Report
Mappings (MMS to Internet Message)
o Deleted unused [Auth], [IPSec], and [StartTLS] references
o Rewrote text on mapping between Resent- and
X-Mms-Previously-Sent- headers.
o Corrected text that confused Envelope-ID and Message-ID.
Changes from -04 to -05:
o Abstract now mentions use of X-MMS-* headers in MMS.
o Deleted "(MAY set to locally-generated value to hide sender
identity)" from Table 1.
o Deleted X-Priority from Table 1.
o Replaced comment with empty group syntax' header in section
2.1.3.2.
o Added Acknowledgements section.
o Removed distinction between SMTP/821 and ESMTP/2821.
o Removed discussion of sender address hiding.
o Removed content transformation.
o Replaced "Gateway" with reference to RFC 2821 Section 2.3.8.
o Deleted 'Resent-Count:'
o Deleted background information on resending/forwarding.
o Changed 'Received:' headder generation to MUST on MMS->Internet.
o Specified response code for "sensitivity" as per [VPIM].
o Changed "sensitivity" response code from SHOULD to MUST.
o Removed reference to RFC 934.
o Removed definition and mentions of anonymous remailer.
o Rewrote and greatly simplified Security Considerations.
o Added "MMS" as a "WITH protocol type" and requested IANA to
register this in its "MAIL Parameters" registry.
o Moved MMS references from Informative to Normative.
o Removed hand-waving about Message-ID.
o Attempted to clarify responsibility for report generation.
Gellens [Page 33] Expires April 2006
Internet Draft Mapping Between MMS and Internet Mail October 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Gellens [Page 34] Expires April 2006
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.100, available from
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/