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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                          C. Newman
Internet-Draft                                          Sun Microsystems
Expires: August 10, 2004                               February 10, 2004


                  Message Submission with Composition
                  draft-newman-lemonade-compose-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also 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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   The submission profile of Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
   provides a standard way for an email client to submit a complete
   message for delivery.  The chunking extension provides a way for a
   client to compose a message for submission from a series of client
   provided pieces.  This specification further extends the chunking
   facility so that a client can compose a message from additional
   sources.  For example, a client could use this facility to forward a
   message from an IMAP server or forward a web page as an attachment to
   a new message.







Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


Table of Contents

   1.  Conventions Used in this Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  BURL Submission Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.1 SMTP Submission Extension Registration . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.2 Composition Transaction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.3 Supported URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.4 Transfer Encoding Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.5 Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.6 Formal Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Message Submission with Composition for Small Devices  . . . .  6
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 10
































Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


1. Conventions Used in this Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
   in this document are to be interpreted as defined in "Key words for
   use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [5].

   The formal syntax use the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [6]
   notation including the core rules defined in Appendix A of RFC 2234.

   In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
   server respectively.  If a single "C:" or "S:" label applies to
   multiple lines, then the line breaks between those lines are for
   editorial clarity only and are not part of the actual protocol
   exchange.

2. Introduction

   This specification defines an extension to the standard Message
   Submission [8] protocol to permit composition of messages from
   multiple sources on the Internet.  This extends the CHUNKING [12]
   mechanism so that chunks of the message can come from external
   sources.  This provides the ability to forward a web page or email
   message without first downloading it to the client.

3. BURL Submission Extension

   This section defines the BURL submission extension.

3.1 SMTP Submission Extension Registration

   1.  The name of this submission extension is "BURL".  This extends
       the Message Submission protocol on port 587 and MUST NOT be
       advertised by a regular SMTP [11] server on port 25.  Compliant
       submission clients MUST attempt to use port 587 prior to falling
       back to port 25, unless explicitly configured to do otherwise by
       the user.

   2.  The EHLO keyword value associated with the extension is "BURL".

   3.  The BURL EHLO keyword will have zero or more arguments.  Each
       argument is either an absoluteURI [7], a prefix of an absoluteURI
       including the <authority> component or a URI scheme name.  The
       arguments which appear after BURL may change subsequent to the
       use of SMTP AUTH [9].

   4.  This extension adds the BURL SMTP verb.  This verb is only
       permitted between the first BDAT [12] SMTP verb in a message
       transaction and a subsequent BDAT in the same transaction which



Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


       includes an end marker.  Out of sequence use of the BURL SMTP
       verb will result in a "503 5.5.1 Bad Sequence of commands" error.

       A server which advertises both BURL and PIPELINING [22] MUST
       accept an entire transaction including MAIL FROM, one or more
       RCPT TO and a combination of BDAT and BURL commands in one round
       trip.  If no valid recipients are present, the BDAT commands all
       fail and the data is consumed, and the BURL commands also fail
       without triggering a fetch of the URL.

   5.  This extension adds no new parameters to the MAIL or RCPT verbs.

   6.  The BURL verb is used during a CHUNKING SMTP transaction.  If the
       argument is a valid URL which the submit server can resolve to a
       data object, the submit server will resolve the URL and
       optionally apply a content-transfer-encoding.


3.2 Composition Transaction

   When a composition client connects to a composition server, it will
   first authenticate (using SMTP AUTH and perhaps STARTTLS), and then
   can compose and submit any number of messages with full
   interoperability with important SMTP extensions such as delivery
   status notifications [14].  Each message which is composed and
   submitted is called a message composition transaction.

   A message composition transaction will typically consist of a MAIL
   FROM, one or more RCPT TO headers, an initial BDAT, an optional
   series of BURL or BDAT commands, and a BURL or BDAT command with the
   "LAST" tag.  The client is permitted to pipeline [22] the entire
   transaction in one round-trip.  However, it MUST wait for the results
   of the "LAST" BDAT or BURL command prior to initiating a new
   transaction.

   The BURL command directs the server to fetch the data object to which
   the URL refers, perform any necessary content transfer encoding
   conversions on that object and include it in the message.  If the URL
   fetch or conversion fails, the server will either fail the entire
   transaction (including consuming any subsequent BDAT or BURL commands
   in the pipeline) or retry the composition later based on the value of
   the "failhow" argument to BURL.

3.3 Supported URIs

   The BURL EHLO keyword arguments list the types of URIs the
   composition server can resolve.  If it lists just the scheme name,
   that indicates the server supports all forms of that URI which refer



Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


   to a single data object.  In the case of IMAP URLs [20], advertising
   the bare scheme name indicates the server also supports the URLAUTH
   [23] extended form.

   The composition server can indicate a pre-arranged trust relationship
   with another server by including a URL qualified by the server name.
   For example, if user "joe" authenticates to the composition server
   and subsequent to authentication the server advertises "imap://
   joe@example.com", that indicates the composition server has a trust
   relationship with example.com that permits access to all messages
   that joe can access.

   If the EHLO keyword has an absoluteURI argument, that indicates the
   server has authorized access to all URIs with that absoluteURI as a
   prefix.

   Implementations are encouraged to support both IMAP and HTTP [21]
   URLs at a minimum.

3.4 Transfer Encoding Conversion

   The composition client can specify that the server should perform a
   transfer encoding conversion after resolving the URL.

   o  The "base64" conversion indicates that if the data was already
      base64 encoded, it should be left unchanged.  Otherwise, any
      content transfer encoding is removed and the result is base64
      encoded.

   o  The "8bit" conversion indicates that any content transfer encoding
      is removed, lines longer than 998 characters MUST be wrapped onto
      multiple lines by insertion of a CRLF, NUL octets MUST be dropped,
      and bare newline or bare carriage return MUST be converted to
      CRLF.

   o  The "none" conversion indicates that the data is unchanged and any
      original content transfer encoding is left in place.  If the
      server does not advertise BINARYMIME and if the raw data would
      require any changes to be labelled "8bit", then the server MUST
      fail the BURL command.

   o  The "binary" conversion is only permitted if the BINARYMIME EHLO
      keyword was advertised, and indicates any content transfer
      encoding is to be removed and the data is to be included otherwise
      unaltered.

   The composition server MAY fail any BURL command which results in
   insertion of data that would violate the MIME charset or



Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


   content-transfer-encoding label at that location in the message.  The
   composition server MUST fail the BURL command if data with the high
   bit set is included prior to the first blank line in the message.

3.5 Example

   TBD.

3.6 Formal Syntax

   The following syntax specification inherits ABNF [6] and Uniform
   Resource Identifiers [7].

      burl-param      = scheme / absoluteURI / trusted-domain
                      ; parameter to BURL EHLO keyword

      burl-cmd        = "BURL" SP conversion SP failhow
                        SP absoluteURI [SP end-marker] CRLF

      conversion      = "base64" / "8bit" / "binary" / "none"

      failhow         = "now" / "retry"

      end-marker      = "LAST"

      trusted-domain  = scheme "://" authority


4. Message Submission with Composition for Small Devices

   A Message Submission [8] server is considered to be a compliant
   Message Submission with Composition server if it implements the
   following specifications:

   o  BURL (Section 3): Mandatory

   o  DSN [14]: Mandatory

   o  STARTTLS [13]: Mandatory

   o  CHUNKING [12]: Mandatory

   o  BINARYMIME [12]: Mandatory

   o  PIPELINING [22]: Mandatory

   o  Revised SMTP [11]: Mandatory, with exceptions in [8].




Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


   o  SMTP AUTH [9]: Mandatory

   o  Submission [8]: Mandatory

   o  Error Codes [3]: Recommended

   o  Size [2]: Mandatory

   o  521 [18]: MUST NOT

   o  Checkpoint [17]: Optional

   o  8BITMIME [1]: Mandatory

   o  TURN [16]: MUST NOT

   Specifications which help reduce data transmissions or round-trips
   between a small device and the composition server are mandatory, as
   well as SMTP extensions proven in the installed base.  A Message
   Composition server MUST require SMTP AUTH prior to accepting a
   submission.  The SASL PLAIN [10] mechanism in combination with
   STARTTLS [13] is the mandatory-to-implement authentication mechanism.

5. IANA Considerations

   When this is published as an RFC, the "BURL" SMTP extension as
   described in Section 3 will be registered.  This registration will be
   marked as for use by message submission [8] only in the registry.

6. Security Considerations

   Implementations which support the URLAUTH [23] form of IMAP URLs MUST
   implement both the SMTP STARTTLS [13] and the IMAP STARTTLS [15]
   extensions and MUST have a configuration setting which requires their
   use with such IMAP URLs.

   When a client uses the SMTP STARTTLS to send a BURL command which
   references non-public information, the message submission server MUST
   use STARTTLS or a mechanism providing equivalent data privacy when
   resolving that URL.

7. Changes from -00

   o  Added the end-marker "LAST", so this could be used without BDAT
      and works with a pre-composed message.

   o  Changed "Message Composition" to "Message Submission with
      Composition" in several places.



Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


   o  Correct Spelling Errors

Normative References

   [1]   Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D. Crocker,
         "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport", RFC 1652, July
         1994.

   [2]   Klensin, J., Freed, N. and K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension
         for Message Size Declaration", STD 10, RFC 1870, November 1995.

   [3]   Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error
         Codes", RFC 2034, October 1996.

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

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

   [6]   Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
         Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

   [7]   Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
         Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
         1998.

   [8]   Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission", RFC 2476,
         December 1998.

   [9]   Myers, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication", RFC
         2554, March 1999.

   [10]  Newman, C., "Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP", RFC 2595,
         June 1999.

   [11]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April
         2001.

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

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

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



Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


         January 2003.

   [15]  Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
         4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.

Informative References

   [16]  Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
         August 1982.

   [17]  Crocker, D. and N. Freed, "SMTP Service Extension for
         Checkpoint/Restart", RFC 1845, September 1995.

   [18]  Durand, A. and F. Dupont, "SMTP 521 Reply Code", RFC 1846,
         September 1995.

   [19]  De Winter, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue
         Starting", RFC 1985, August 1996.

   [20]  Newman, C., "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 2192, September 1997.

   [21]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L.,
         Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
         HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [22]  Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining", STD
         60, RFC 2920, September 2000.

   [23]  Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
         URLAUTH", draft-crispin-imap-urlauth-00 (work in progress),
         June 2003.


Author's Address

   Chris Newman
   Sun Microsystems
   1050 Lakes Drive
   West Covina, CA  91790
   US

   EMail: chris.newman@sun.com









Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Message Submission with Composition      February 2004


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











































Newman                  Expires August 10, 2004                [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/