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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5248

Network Working Group                                          T. Hansen
Internet-Draft                                         AT&T Laboratories
Updates: 1893,4468,                                       March 12, 2007
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 13, 2007


               A Registry for Mail Enhanced Status Codes
              draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-00.txt

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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document establishes an IANA registry for SMTP Enhanced Status
   Codes.







Hansen                 Expires September 13, 2007               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry         March 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 5








































Hansen                 Expires September 13, 2007               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry         March 2007


1.  Introduction

   Enhanced Status Codes for SMTP were first defined in [1], which was
   replaced by [2].  Since that time, various RFCs have been published
   and internet drafts proposed that define further status codes.
   However, no IANA registry was defined for the status codes and
   conflicts in definitions have begun to appear.  This RFC defines such
   an IANA registry and was written to help prevent further conflicts
   from appearing in the future.

   This document is being discussed on the SMTP mailing list,
   ietf-smtp@imc.org [6].


2.  IANA Considerations

   o  IANA is directed to create the registry Mail Enhanced Status
      Codes.  In the terms of [5], values of Enhanced Status Codes must
      be registered with IANA under the IETF Consensus method.
   o  The Mail Enhanced Status Codes registry will have three tables:
      *  class sub-code,
      *  subject sub-code, and
      *  enumerated status codes, which include both a subject sub-code
         and a detail sub-code.
   o  Each entry in the tables will include: the sub-code or enumerated
      status code, a definition title for the code, and a description of
      the code's use, similar to the entries shown in [2].  An example
      of an entry in the enumerated status code table would be:
      X.0.0  Other undefined Status
         Other undefined status is the only undefined error code.  It
         should be used for all errors for which only the class of the
         error is known.
   o  The initial values for the class and subject sub-code tables is to
      be populated from section 2 of [2].
   o  The initial values for the enumerated status code table is to be
      populated from sections 3.1 through 3.8 of [2], section 3.3.4 of
      [3], and section 5 of [4].


3.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations.


4.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks go to the members of the ietf-smtp@imc.org [6] mailing list.




Hansen                 Expires September 13, 2007               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry         March 2007


5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 1893,
        January 1996.

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

   [3]  Allman, E., "An Extensible Message Format for Message Tracking
        Responses", RFC 3886, September 2004.

   [4]  Newman, C., "Message Submission BURL Extension", RFC 4468,
        May 2006.

5.2.  Informative References

   [5]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
        Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

URIs

   [6]  <mailto:ietf-smtp@imc.org>


Author's Address

   Tony Hansen
   AT&T Laboratories
   200 Laurel Ave.
   Middletown, NJ  07748
   USA

   Email: tony+mailesc@maillennium.att.com
















Hansen                 Expires September 13, 2007               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry         March 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Hansen                 Expires September 13, 2007               [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/