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

Versions: 00

Claus

Internet Draft                                       Claus Andre Faerber
draft-ietf-usefor-msg-id-alt-00                               1998-09-06
                                                     Expires: 1999-03-06

                  Guidelines for the Generation of
              Message IDs and Similar Unique Identifiers

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft. 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 made obsolete 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."

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   [RFC822] and [RFC1036] define so-called 'Message-IDs' that represent
   a unique identifier for email and netnews messages. A similar
   identifier is also used by [RFC2045] for the 'Content-ID' label.

   For each of these protocols, uniqueness of the identifiers generated
   is more or less essential. Unfortunately, the original Message-ID
   specification requires that the generator have an own, non-temporary
   full qualified domain name available, which does not allow hosts that
   are connected via dialup lines and get dynamically assigned IP
   addresses (and hostnames) to generate unique IDs offline.

   This memo provides recommendations for the generation of such IDs
   without risking non-uniqueness.

Table of Contents

  1 Format And Use of Message-IDs
     1.1 The Message-ID and Content-ID headers
     1.2 Syntax for IDs
     1.3 Uniqueness of Message-IDs and Content-IDs

  2 Message ID format
     2.1 Message ID namespaces
        2.1.1 Based on the Host's Full Qualified Domain Name
        2.1.2 Based on an Email Address
        2.1.3 Based on Login Name and FQDN
        2.1.4 Obsolete methods
           2.1.4.1 Based on a UUCP name
           2.1.4.2 Based on an IP Address
        2.1.5 Non-Acceptable Methods

     2.2 Generating the "unique" part
        2.2.1 Current Date and Time
        2.2.2 Process and Thread ID
        2.2.3 Sequence Number
        2.2.4 Software name
        2.2.5 Other Unique Data Sources

  3 Security considerations
     3.1 Namespace Invasions
     3.2 Revealing Information about the Generating system

Definitions

   This memo uses the Augmented BNF defined in [RFC2234] as well as some
   definitions from [RFC822].
   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 [RFC2119].

1 Format And Use of Message-IDs

1.1 The Message-ID and Content-ID headers

   The Message-ID is defined in [RFC822], to which [RFC1036] and
   [RFC2045] reference, as follows:

     msg-id      =  "<" addr-spec ">"            ; Unique message id

   NOTE: These IDs are used in special message headers, whose format is
   not important for this specification, which only deals with the part
   between the "<>"s.

   In this specification, the terms "Message-ID" and "Content-ID" or
   just "ID" refer to the part between the "<" and ">", which are
   considered delimiters.

   NOTE: This differs from [RFC822] and [RFC1036], where the angle
   brackets are considered part of the ID. However, the definition used
   herein is consistent with the use of such identifiers in other
   protocols, such as URIs.

1.2 Syntax for IDs

   The syntax of IDs is defined in [RFC822] as being the same as that of
   domain-based Internet email addresses:

     addr-spec   =  local-part "@" domain

1.3 Uniqueness of Message-IDs and Content-IDs

   According to [RFC822], Message-IDs "are" unique, i.e. not reused for
   other email messages.

   [RFC1036] RECOMMENDS Message-IDs to be unique for at least two years.

   [RFC2045] says Content-IDs are world-unique "like Message-ID values".

   This memo RECOMMENDS that IDs are generated in a way that guarantees
   uniqueness for an unlimited period of time. The methods presented
   here fulfil this recommendation.

   None of the specifications above says whether reusing an IDs of one
   type as the ID of another type (e.g. using the same ID as a Message-
   ID and as a Content-ID) is allowed. As any ID generator must be able
   to generate an arbitrary number of unique IDs, reusing IDs of one
   type for other types of IDs is PROHIBITED.

   As a special exception, for messages sent via both email and news,
   both copies may use the same Message-ID, provided both copies are
   considered the same.

   NOTE: The exact definition of being "the same" is beyond the scope of
   this memo.

2 Message ID format

  To guarantee uniqueness, IDs consist of two elements:

  namespace: An identifier derived from managed databases such as the
    DNS. The owner of an ID namespace is the owner of the identifier
    assigned by that database.

  unique: A more or less arbitrary string, whose uniqueness is
    guaranteed by the owner of the ID namespace.

  Traditionally, the namespace was the right hand side of message ID.
  This is no longer true. See sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 for details.

2.1 Message ID namespaces

2.1.1 Based on the Host's Full Qualified Domain Name

   If the host generating the ID has an own, not dynamically assigned
   host name, this name MAY be used:

     fqdn-id      := unique "@" fqdn
     fqdn         := <name of the host generating the id>

   The host name MUST be a full qualified domain name of the host.
   CNAMEs are ALLOWED. It is not required (OPTIONAL) that the FQDN be
   visible in the DNS as long as it has been assigned to a host owner by
   the authority of the domain it belongs to and it is syntactically
   valid.

   NOTE: This allows providers that use dialup lines to assign "host
   names" solely for the purpose of offline ID creation to their
   customers.

   The person who is responsible for running software that creates IDs
   of this type SHOULD have the explicit permission of the host owner.
   This may be the owner him/herself, the administrator or a privileged
   user.

   Examples:
      <6$klsd0kfdl@mail.example.com>
      <A2D634B3.432534C0.9392@news0.example.com>
      <6334C0.9A4B3.4325392@j.smith.example.com>

   Illegal Examples:                   Reason:
      <A23DF2343409@mycomputer>           Not full qualified.
      <fslkd0394lkdf0i203kl@dialup-23.example.com> Not static (assuming
                                          that dialup-23.example.com is
                                          a name assigned to one of the
                                          IP addresses for dynamic
                                          allocation).

2.1.2 Based on an Email Address

   If messages are prepared offline, a static FQDN or IP address may not
   be available. For this case, IDs may be generated from the owner's
   email address:

     email-id     := unique "%" addr-spec

   NOTE that addr-spec contains the required "@".

   The local part MAY be passed through a non-reversible hash function,
   such as the standard POSIX crypt(). In this case, the delimiter
   SHOULD be "%%" or "%<hash function>%" instead of "%":

     emailhash-id := unique "%" [hash-name] "%" local-part "@" domain
     hash-name    := "crypt" / "md5" / "sha1" / ...

   NOTE that hash functions do not guarantee uniqueness. Account
   managers should warn users if two local-parts in the same domain
   produce the same result with one commonly used hash function.

   NOTE There is currently no registry for hash function names. This
   is not a problem as the name is only used to avoid clashes.

   Examples:
      <dfsxl3kc03kl%claus@faerber.muc.de>
      <dkfskflskf%md5%4e32df22da@faerber.muc.de>

2.1.3 Based on Login Name and FQDN

   Similar to based on email address (section 2.1.2), however the email
   address is replaced by the login name of the current user and the
   FQDN of the host. This MAY or MAY NOT be a valid email address.

     login-id     := unique "%" login "@" fqdn
     login        := <login name of the current user
                     or numeric user id>

   For the full qualified domain names, the rules from section 2.1.1
   apply except that the generator need not be under the control of the
   host owner, but MUST be run by or on behalf of by the person owning
   the login name used.

   This method is preferred over using the FQDN only (section 2.1.1) for
   implementations not run by the host administrator or owner.

   Hash functions MAY be used as for email addresses:

     loginhash-id := unique "%" [hash-name] "%" login "@" fqdn

2.1.4 Obsolete methods

   These methods for obtaining a unique identifier are still valid but
   deprecated. One of the methods above SHOULD be used instead.

2.1.4.1 Based on a UUCP name

   Similar to based on the FQDN (section 2.1.1), however the FQDN is
   replaced by the UUCP name of the host in the top level domain "uucp".

   The UUCP name MUST be reserved in the UUCP Worldmap. UUCP names MUST
   NOT be used without the trailing ".uucp".

   Examples:
      <kdkfjlsfjsdjf@uunet.uucp>

   Illegal Examples:                   Reason:
      <slskdfdfslfld@uunet>               No ".uucp" suffix.
      <lkflklfksldkf@mycomputer>          Not a valid UUCP name / not
                                          reserved in the Worldmap.

2.1.4.2 Based on an IP Address

   Similar to based on the FQDN (section 2.1.1), however the FQDN is
   replaced by the IP address of the host in square brackets.

      ip-id       := unique "@" ip-literal
      ip-literal  := "[" <the numeric IP-address> "]"

   The IP address used MUST be static, i.e. it MUST NOT be assigned
   dynamically (cf. section 2.1 about static host names).

   The IP address MUST NOT be from on of the areas reserved for private
   use (e.g. 192.168.*.*).

   Example:
      <6ASDFLKF3409SFKLDK@[123.45.67.89]>

   Illegal Example:                    Reason:
      <23043klksf034sdfs@[10.0.0.1]>      Private IP

2.1.5 Non-Acceptable Methods

   The following methods are not acceptable and SHOULD NOT be used:

   * Using only the domain part of the email address.
   * Using a computer name that is for use in private networks (LANs)
     and not guaranteed to be world-unique.

   * Methods that violate one or more of the restrictions introduced in
     sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.4.

2.2 Generating the "unique" part

   The "unique" part is the part that changes from ID to ID generated
   by the same entity. The uniqueness is guaranteed by the owner of the
   ID namespace it is used in. It is important to use a scheme that
   makes it very unlikely, better impossible, that the same "unique"
   string will be generated twice.

   The "unique" part is often derived from a combination of the
   following data:

   * the current date and time
   * the process and thread id of the generating service
   * a sequence number
   * the name of the software generating the ID

   The data MAY be encoded in some way, to make IDs shorter and to
   make clear that the unique part of IDs SHOULD NOT be interpreted.
   Examples for such encodings are MIME Base64 [RFC2045] (preferably
   of the binary representation of the data), Hex (Base 16), etc.

   Because IDs can occur very frequently in some protocols, particuarly
   in References lines of mail and news messages, all efforts should be
   made to make them compact, as long as they remain unique.

   The full set of characters that MAY be freely used for the encoded
   form is:

      unique-chars := "A".."Z" / "a".."z" / "1".."9"
                     / "!" / "#" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "*" / "+" / "-"
                     / "/" / "=" / "?" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|"
                     / "}" / "~"                         ; 80 characters

   The dot (".") MAY be used everywhere except the beginning and the
   end, e.g. as a field separator.

      unique-word := 1*unique-chars
      unique      := unique-word *( "." unique-word )

   The percent sign ("%") is NOT RECOMMENDED due to its use as a
   separator for the email and login+FQDN namespaces (sections 2.1.3 and
   2.1.4). The use of "quoted-string"s is NOT RECOMMENDED for
   compatibiliby with buggy software.

   NOTE that protocols that use IDs MAY allow additional syntax elements
   within the IDs, such as comments or line breaks. These are not
   considered part of the ID.

   Generators MAY encrypt IDs with reversible methods. Non-reversible
   hash functions SHOULD NOT be used, as they usually do not guarantee
   uniqueness.

   Example for ID generating schemes:
      <microseconds since 1970-01-01, base 36-encoded> "." <process id,
      base 36-encoded>

      <seconds since 1960-01-01, hex-encoded> "." <internal counter>

      <number of 100ns intervals since 1600-01-01, base 80-encoded> "."
      <process and thread id, base 80-encoded> "." <LAN computer name>

   (These are provided as examples, not as a recommendation.)

2.2.1 Current Date and Time

   The current date and time MUST be used, as it is the only data that
   changes regularly and most reliably. The highest available resolution
   is RECOMMENDED.

   To make it impossible that two IDs are generated by the same process
   within the lowest measurable time on the system, the generating
   process may either sleep until the system time changes or simulate a
   higher resolution by incrementing an internal counter.

2.2.2 Process and Thread ID

   As different processes might generate IDs at exactly the same time,
   the time alone may not be sufficient on multitasking systems. To
   avoid clashes, the process ID and - if the generating process is
   multithreaded - the thread ID MAY be used.

2.2.3 Sequence Number

   A sequence number that is incremented for every ID and stored in a
   file MAY be used to make clashes less likely.

   However, an ID generator MUST NOT, repeat MUST NOT use such counters
   as the only source for the generation of the unique part, as this
   will result in clashes in case the file is deleted and/or restored
   from a backup.

2.2.4 Software name

   The name of the software MAY be used to avoid that users switching
   their software will accidentally have the same "unique" string
   created from different input data processed differently.

   Note: The software name should be as short as possible, there should
   not be a version number of the software, unless the generation
   algorithm changes in a way that would make clashes possible.

2.2.5 Other Unique Data Sources

   Other sources that may be used to guarantee or further enhance the
   probability of uniqueness include:

   * The host's Ethernet MAC address.
   * The host's LAN name (not full qualified).
   * Data entered by the user told to enter a unique string.

   It might be wise to use these together with email based (section
   2.1.2) namespaces, as the same user can work on different machines.

3 Security considerations

3.1 Namespace Invasions

   Message IDs are traditionally insecure. There is currently no method
   to prevent Message IDs from being faked.

   Accidental or intentional clashes of IDs have different impact
   depending on the protocol they are used for. Each protocol
   specification using IDs MUST address the security issues raised and
   SHOULD provide methods to prevent abuse of ID namespaces owned by
   others.

   Future standards MAY associate ID namespaces with public/private key
   pairs and require authentication on a per-namespace basis.

   Using encryption of the unique part (see section 2.2) makes it harder
   to guess the next IDs generated for denial of service attacks.

3.2 Revealing Information about the Generating system

   Implementers and users are warned that the following information
   might be derived by the analysis of message IDs:

   * host the ID was generated on
   * email address of the user (also as combination of login@fqdn)
   * date and time when the ID was generated
   * resolution of the system's clock
   * operating system (from thread and process IDs)
   * software used (also from structure of the unique string)

   By encrypting the unique part (see section 2.2) or using hash
   functions (see section 2.1.2), this can be made nearly impossible.

References

[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
   Messages", August 1982, STD 11, RFC 822.

[RFC1036] Horton, M.R., Adams, R., "Standard for interchange of USENET
   messages", December 1987, RFC 1036.

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

[RFC2111] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
   Locators," March 1997, RFC 2111.

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

[RFC2234] Crocker, D., Overell, P., "Augmented BNF for Syntax
   Specifications: ABNF", November 1997, RFC 2234.

Author

   Claus Andre Faerber
   Mitterfeldstrasse 20
   83043 Bad Aibling
   Germany

   Fax: +49-8061-3361

   E-Mail: cfaerber@muc.de

   Note: Please write the author's name with the correct diacritic
   marks where possible, i.e. Claus Andr&eacute; F&auml;rber in HTML.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  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 organisations, 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 assigns.

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

Internet Draft
Expires 1999-03-06


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/