draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-06.txt   draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-07.txt 
Network Working Group M. Kucherawy Network Working Group M. Kucherawy
Internet-Draft August 5, 2014 Internet-Draft August 8, 2014
Updates: 7208 (if approved) Updates: 7208 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 6, 2015 Expires: February 9, 2015
Email Authentication Status Codes Email Authentication Status Codes
draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-06 draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-07
Abstract Abstract
This document registers code points to allow status codes to be This document registers code points to allow status codes to be
returned to an email client to indicate that a message is being returned to an email client to indicate that a message is being
rejected or deferred specifically because of email authentication rejected or deferred specifically because of email authentication
failures. failures.
This document updates [RFC7208] since some of the code points This document updates [RFC7208] since some of the code points
registered replace the ones recommended for use in that document. registered replace the ones recommended for use in that document.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 6, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 9, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. New Enhanced Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. New Enhanced Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. DKIM Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. DKIM Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. SPF Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. SPF Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Reverse DNS Failure Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Reverse DNS Failure Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Multiple Authentication Failures Code . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Multiple Authentication Failures Code . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC3463] introduced Enhanced Mail System Status Codes, and [RFC5248] [RFC3463] introduced Enhanced Mail System Status Codes, and [RFC5248]
created an IANA registry for these. created an IANA registry for these.
[RFC6376] and [RFC7208] introduced, respectively, DomainKeys [RFC6376] and [RFC7208] introduced, respectively, DomainKeys
Identified Mail (DKIM) and Sender Policy Framework (SPF), two Identified Mail (DKIM) and Sender Policy Framework (SPF), two
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
3. New Enhanced Status Codes 3. New Enhanced Status Codes
The following new enhanced status codes are defined: The following new enhanced status codes are defined:
3.1. DKIM Failure Codes 3.1. DKIM Failure Codes
In the code point definitions below, the term "acceptable" means both In the code point definitions below, the following definitions are
of the following: used:
a. The signature passed the basic DKIM verification algorithm as passing: A signature is "passing" if the basic DKIM verification
defined in [RFC6376]; and algorithm as defined in [RFC6376] succeeds.
b. The signature satisfied any local policy requirements in addition acceptable: A signature is "acceptable" if it satisfies all locally
to the basic algorithm (e.g., certain header fields included in defined requirements (if any) in addition to passing the basic
the signed content, no partial signatures, etc.). DKIM verification algorithm (e.g., certain header fields are
included in the signed content; no partial signatures; etc.).
Code: X.7.20 Code: X.7.20
Sample Text: No valid DKIM signature found Sample Text: No passing DKIM signature found
Associated basic status code: 550 Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message Description: This status code is returned when a message
did not contain any acceptable DKIM did not contain any passing DKIM
signatures. (Note that this violates the signatures. (This violates the
advice of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.) advice of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)
Reference: [this document]; RFC6376 Reference: [this document]; RFC6376
Submitter: M. Kucherawy Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG Change controller: IESG
Code: X.7.21 Code: X.7.21
Sample Text: No acceptable DKIM signature found
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message
contains one or more passing DKIM signatures,
but none are acceptable. (This violates the
advice of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)
Reference: [this document]; RFC6376
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
Code: X.7.22
Sample Text: No valid author-matched DKIM signature found Sample Text: No valid author-matched DKIM signature found
Associated basic status code: 550 Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message Description: This status code is returned when a message
did not contain any acceptable DKIM contains one or more passing DKIM
signatures whose identifier(s) match the signatures, but none are acceptable because
author address(es) found in the From header none have an identifier(s)
field. (Note that this violates the advice that matches the author address(es) found in
of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.) This is a the From header field. This is a special
special case of the X.7.20 status code. case of X.7.21. (This violates the advice
of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)
Reference: [this document]; RFC6376 Reference: [this document]; RFC6376
Submitter: M. Kucherawy Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG Change controller: IESG
3.2. SPF Failure Codes 3.2. SPF Failure Codes
Code: X.7.23
Code: X.7.22
Sample Text: SPF validation failed Sample Text: SPF validation failed
Associated basic status code: 550 Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message Description: This status code is returned when a message
completed an SPF check that produced a completed an SPF check that produced a
"fail" result, contrary to local policy "fail" result, contrary to local policy
requirements. Used in place of 5.7.1 as requirements. Used in place of 5.7.1 as
described in Section 8.4 of RFC7208. described in Section 8.4 of RFC7208.
Reference: [this document]; RFC7208 Reference: [this document]; RFC7208
Submitter: M. Kucherawy Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG Change controller: IESG
Code: X.7.23
Code: X.7.24
Sample Text: SPF validation error Sample Text: SPF validation error
Associated basic status code: 451/550 Associated basic status code: 451/550
Description: This status code is returned when evaluation Description: This status code is returned when evaluation
of SPF relative to an arriving message of SPF relative to an arriving message
resulted in an error. Used in place of resulted in an error. Used in place of
4.4.3 or 5.5.2 as described in Sections 4.4.3 or 5.5.2 as described in Sections
8.6 and 8.7 of RFC7208. 8.6 and 8.7 of RFC7208.
Reference: [this document]; RFC7208 Reference: [this document]; RFC7208
Submitter: M. Kucherawy Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG Change controller: IESG
3.3. Reverse DNS Failure Code 3.3. Reverse DNS Failure Code
Code: X.7.24 Code: X.7.25
Sample Text: Reverse DNS validation failed Sample Text: Reverse DNS validation failed
Associated basic status code: 550 Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when an SMTP Description: This status code is returned when an SMTP
client's IP address failed a reverse DNS client's IP address failed a reverse DNS
validation check, contrary to local policy validation check, contrary to local policy
requirements. requirements.
Reference: [this document]; Section 3 of RFC7001 Reference: [this document]; Section 3 of RFC7001
Submitter: M. Kucherawy Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG Change controller: IESG
3.4. Multiple Authentication Failures Code 3.4. Multiple Authentication Failures Code
Code: X.7.26
Code: X.7.25
Sample Text: Multiple authentication checks failed Sample Text: Multiple authentication checks failed
Associated basic status code: 550 Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message Description: This status code is returned when a message
failed more than one message authentication failed more than one message authentication
check, contrary to local policy requirements. check, contrary to local policy requirements.
The specific mechanisms that failed are not The specific mechanisms that failed are not
specified. specified.
Reference: [this document] Reference: [this document]
Submitter: M. Kucherawy Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG Change controller: IESG
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 41 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/