Network Working Group                                      Jiankang. Yao
Internet-Draft                                                  Wei. Mao
Obsoletes: RFC5336                                                 CNNIC
(if approved)                                         September 26,                                           October 21, 2010
Updates: RFC5321 and 5322
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 30, April 24, 2011

           SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Address
                    draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-03.txt
                    draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-04.txt

Abstract

   This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery
   of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header
   information.  Communication with systems that do not implement this
   specification is specified in another document.  This document updates some syntaxes and rules defined
   in RFC 5321 and RFC 5322.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 30, April 24, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  3
     1.1.  Role of This Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  3
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  3
   2.  Overview of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5  4
   3.  Mail Transport-Level Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5  4
     3.1.  Framework for the Internationalization Extension . . . . .  5  4
     3.2.  The UTF8SMTPbis Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6  5
     3.3.  Extended Mailbox Address Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7  6
     3.4.  UTF8 addresses and Response Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  7
     3.5.  Body Parts and SMTP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  7
     3.6.  Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications  . . . . . . .  9  8
       3.6.1.  The Initial SMTP Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9  8
       3.6.2.  Mail eXchangers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9  8
       3.6.3.  Trace Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10  9
       3.6.4.  UTF-8 Strings in Replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 13
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 13
   7.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     7.1.  draft-yao-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     7.2.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00  . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     7.3.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 01  . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     7.4.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 02  . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     7.5.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 03  . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     7.6.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 04  . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16

1.  Introduction

   An internationalized email address includes two parts, the local part
   and the domain part.  The ways email addresses are used by protocols
   are different from the ways domain names are used.  The most critical
   difference is that emails are delivered through a chain of clients
   and servers, while domain names are resolved by name servers looking
   up those names in their own tables.  In addition to this, the  The Simple Mail Transfer
   Protocol [RFC5321] provides a negotiation mechanism about service
   extension with which clients can discover server capabilities and
   make decisions for further processing.  An extended overview of the
   extension model for internationalized addresses and headers appears
   in [RFC4952bis], referred to as "the framework document" or just as
   "framework" elsewhere in this specification.  This document specifies
   an SMTP extension to permit internationalized email addresses in
   envelopes, and UNICODE characters (encoded in UTF-8) [RFC3629] in
   headers.

1.1.  Role of This Specification

   The framework document specifies the requirements for, and describes
   components of, full internationalization of the electronic mail.  A
   thorough understanding of the information in that document and in the
   base Internet email specifications [RFC5321] [RFC5322] is necessary
   to understand and implement this specification.

   This document specifies an element of the email internationalization
   work, specifically the definition of an SMTP extension [RFC5321] for
   internationalized email address transport delivery.

1.2.  Terminology

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   The terms "UTF-8 string" or "UTF-8 character" are used informally to
   refer to Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629].  All other
   specialized terms used in this specification are defined in the
   framework document [RFC4952bis]or in the base Internet email
   specifications [RFC5321] [RFC5322].  In particular, the terms "ASCII
   address", "internationalized email address", "non-ASCII address",
   "i18mail address", "UTF8SMTPbis","conventional message",
   "internationalized message", "message", and "mailing list" are used
   in this document according to the definitions in the framework
   document [RFC4952bis].

   This specification defines only those Augmented BNF (ABNF) [RFC5234]
   syntax rules that are different from those of the base email
   specifications [RFC5321][RFC5322] and, where the earlier rules are
   upgraded or extended, gives them new names.  When the new rule is a
   small modification to the older one, it is typically given a name
   starting with "u".  Rules that are undefined here may be found in the
   base email specifications under the same names.

2.  Overview of Operation

   This specification describes an optional extension to the email
   transport mechanism that permits non-ASCII [ASCII] characters in both
   the envelope and header fields of messages, which are encoded with
   UTF-8 [RFC3629] characters.  The extension is identified with the
   token "UTF8SMTPbis".  In order to provide information that may be
   needed in downgrading, an optional alternate ASCII address may be
   needed if an SMTP client attempts to transfer an internationalized
   message and encounters a server that does not support this extension.

   The EAI UTF-8 header specification [RFC5335bis] provides the details
   of how and where non-ASCII characters are permitted in the header
   fields of messages.  The context for this specification is described
   in the framework document.

3.  Mail Transport-Level Protocol

3.1.  Framework for the Internationalization Extension

   The following service extension is defined:
   1.  The name of the SMTP service extension is "Email Address
       Internationalization".
   2.  The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
       "UTF8SMTPbis".
   3.  No parameter values are defined for this EHLO keyword value.  In
       order to permit future (although unanticipated) extensions, the
       EHLO response MUST NOT contain any parameters for that keyword.
       Clients MUST ignore any parameters; that is, clients MUST behave
       as if the parameters do not appear.  If a server includes
       UTF8SMTPbis in its EHLO response, it MUST be fully compliant with
       this version of this specification.
   4.  One optional parameter "UTF8REPLY" is added to the VRFY and EXPN
       commands.  The parameter UTF8REPLY has no value.  The parameter
       indicates that the SMTP client can accept Unicode characters in
       UTF-8 encoding in replies from the VRFY and EXPN commands.

   5.  No additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
   6.  Servers offering this extension MUST provide support for, and
       announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
   7.  The reverse-path and forward-path of the SMTP MAIL and RCPT
       commands are extended to allow Unicode characters encoded in
       UTF-8 in mailbox names (addresses).
   8.  The mail message body is extended as specified in [RFC5335bis].
   9.  The UTF8SMTPbis extension is valid on the submission port
       [RFC4409].

3.2.  The UTF8SMTPbis Extension

   An SMTP server that announces this extension MUST be prepared to
   accept a UTF-8 string [RFC3629] in any position in which RFC 5321
   specifies that a mailbox can appear.  That string MUST be parsed only
   as specified in [RFC5321], i.e., by separating the mailbox into
   source route, local part, and domain part, using only the characters
   colon (U+003A), comma (U+002C), and at-sign (U+0040) as specified
   there.  Once isolated by this parsing process, the local part MUST be
   treated as opaque unless the SMTP server is the final delivery Mail
   Transfer Agent (MTA).  Any domain names to be looked up in the DNS
   MUST allow for [RFC5890] behavior.  When doing lookups, the server
   MUST either use a Unicode aware DNS library, or transform it to
   A-label defined in [RFC5890].  Any domain names that are to be
   compared to local strings SHOULD be checked for validity and then
   MUST be compared as specified in section 3 of [RFC5891].

   An SMTP client that receives the UTF8SMTPbis extension keyword in
   response to the EHLO command MAY transmit mailbox names within SMTP
   commands as internationalized strings in UTF-8 form.  It MAY send a
   UTF-8 header [RFC5335bis] (which may also include mailbox names in
   UTF-8).  It MAY transmit the domain parts of mailbox names within
   SMTP commands or the message header as either ACE (ASCII Compatible
   Encoding) labels (as specified in IDNA definitions [RFC5890]) or
   UTF-8 strings.  All labels in domain parts of mailbox names which are
   IDNs (either UTF-8 or ACE strings) MUST be valid.  If the original
   client  When a Message
   User Agent submits a message to a Message Submission Server ("MSA")
   [RFC4409],
   ("MSA")[RFC4409], it is the responsibility of the MSA to ensure that
   all domain labels are valid; otherwise, it is the original client's responsibility. valid.  The presence of the UTF8SMTPbis
   extension does not change the requirement of RFC 5321 that servers
   relaying mail MUST NOT attempt to parse, evaluate, or transform the
   local part in any way.

   If the UTF8SMTPbis SMTP extension is not offered by the server, the
   SMTP client MUST NOT transmit an internationalized address and MUST
   NOT transmit a mail message containing internationalized mail headers
   as described in [RFC5335bis] at any level within its MIME structure
   [RFC2045] and [RFC2047].  (For this paragraph, the internationalized
   domain name in the form of ACE labels as specified in IDNA
   definitions [RFC5890] is not considered to be "internationalized".)
   Instead, if an SMTP client (SMTP sender) attempts to transfer an
   internationalized message and encounters a server that does not
   support the extension, it MUST make one of the following three
   choices:

   1.  If and only if the SMTP client (sender) is a Message Submission
       Server ("MSA") [RFC4409], it MAY, consistent with the general
       provisions for changes by such servers, rewrite the envelope,
       headers, or message material to make them entirely ASCII and
       consistent with the provisions of RFC 5321 [RFC5321] and RFC 5322
       [RFC5322].
   2.  It may either reject the message during the SMTP transaction or
       accept the message and then generate and transmit a notification
       of non-deliverability.  Such notification MUST be done as
       specified in RFC 5321 [RFC5321], RFC 3464 [RFC3464], and the EAI
       delivery status notification (DSN) specification [RFC5337bis].
   3.  It may find an alternate route to the destination that permits
       UTF8SMTPbis.  That route may be discovered by trying alternate
       Mail eXchanger (MX) hosts (using preference rules as specified in
       RFC 5321) or using other means available to the SMTP-sender.

   This document applies only when an UTF8SMTPbis-aware client is trying
   to send an internationalized message to a server which requires the
   UTF8SMTPbis extensions to handle it.  For all other cases, and for
   addresses and messages that do not require an UTF8SMTPbis extension,
   SMTP clients and servers are expected to behave exactly as specified
   in [RFC5321].

   A UTF8SMTPbis aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server [RFC5321]
   and [RFC5322] MAY convert the ASCII@non-ASCII addresse address into the format
   of ASCII@A-label [RFC5890] if the email address is in the format of
   ASCII@non-ASCII.

3.3.  Extended Mailbox Address Syntax

   RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2, defines the syntax of a mailbox entirely in
   terms of ASCII characters, using the production for a mailbox and
   those productions on which it depends.

   The key changes made by this specification are, informally, to
   o  Change the definition of "Domain" to permit either the definition
      above or a UTF-8 string representing a DNS label that is
      conformant with IDNA definitions [RFC5890].
   o  Change the definition of "Local-part" to permit either the
      definition above or a UTF-8 string.  That string MUST NOT contain
      any of the ASCII characters (either graphics or controls) that are
      not permitted in "atext"; it is otherwise unrestricted.

   According to the description above, the syntax of an
   internationalized email mailbox name (address) is defined in ABNF
   [RFC5234] as follows.

            uMailbox = uLocal-part "@" uDomain
              ; uLocal-part and uDomain defined
              ; in RFC 5335bis, Section 4.

   The value of "uDomain" SHOULD be verified by IDNA definitions
   [RFC5890].  If that verification fails, the email address with that
   uDomain MUST NOT be regarded as a valid email address.

3.4.  UTF8 addresses and Response Codes

   An "internationalized message" as defined in the appendix of this
   specification MUST NOT be sent to an SMTP server that does not
   support UTF8SMTPbis.  Such a message should be rejected by a server
   if it lacks the support of UTF8SMTPbis.

   The three-digit reply codes used in this section are consistent with
   their meanings as defined in RFC 5321.

   When messages are rejected because the RCPT command requires an ASCII
   address, the response code 553 is used with the meaning "mailbox name
   not allowed".  When messages are rejected for other reasons, such as
   the MAIL command requiring an ASCII address, the response code 550 is
   used with the meaning "mailbox unavailable".  When the server
   supports enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463], response code
   "X.6.7" [RFC5248] is used, meaning that "UTF-8 addresses not
   permitted for that sender/recipient".

   If the response code is issued after the final "." of the DATA
   command, the response code "554" is used with the meaning
   "Transaction failed".  When the server supports enhanced mail system
   status codes [RFC3463], response code "X.6.9" [RFC5248] is used,
   meaning that "UTF-8 header message can't can not be transferred to one or
   more recipient so the message must be bounced".

3.5.  Body Parts and SMTP Extensions

   There is no ESMTP parameter to assert that a message is an
   internationalized message.  An SMTP server that requires accurate
   knowledge of whether a message is internationalized is required to
   parse all message header fields and MIME header fields [RFC2045] and
   [RFC2047] in the message body.

   While this specification requires that servers support the 8BITMIME
   extension [RFC1652] to ensure that servers have adequate handling
   capability for 8-bit data and to avoid a number of complex encoding
   problems, the use of internationalized addresses obviously does not
   require non-ASCII body parts in the MIME message [RFC2045] and
   [RFC2047].  The UTF8SMTPbis extension MAY be used with the
   BODY=8BITMIME parameter if that is appropriate given the body content
   or, with the BODY=BINARYMIME parameter, if the server advertises
   BINARYMIME [RFC3030] and that is appropriate.

   Assuming that the server advertises UTF8SMTPbis and 8BITMIME, and
   receives at least one non-ASCII address, the precise interpretation
   of "BODY=8BITMIME", and "BODY=BINARYMIME" in the MAIL command is:
   1.  If a BODY=8BITMIME parameter is present, the header contains
       UTF-8 characters, and some or all of the body parts contain 8-bit
       line-oriented data.
   2.  If a BODY=BINARYMIME parameter is present, the header contains
       UTF-8 characters, and some or all body parts contain binary data
       without restriction as to line lengths or delimiters.

3.6.  Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications

   The information carried in the mail transport process involves
   addresses ("mailboxes") and domain names in various contexts in
   addition to the MAIL and RCPT commands and extended alternatives to
   them.  In general, the rule is that, when RFC 5321 specifies a
   mailbox, this specification expects UTF-8 to be used for the entire
   string; when RFC 5321 specifies a domain name, the name SHOULD be in
   the form of ACE labels if its raw form is non-ASCII.

   The following subsections list and discuss all of the relevant cases.

3.6.1.  The Initial SMTP Exchange

   When an SMTP connection is opened, the server normally sends a
   "greeting" response consisting of the 220 response code and some
   information.  The client then sends the EHLO command.  Since the
   client cannot know whether the server supports UTF8SMTPbis until
   after it receives the response from EHLO, any domain names that
   appear in this dialogue, or in responses to EHLO, MUST be in the
   hostname form, i.e., internationalized ones MUST be in the form of
   ACE labels.

3.6.2.  Mail eXchangers

   Organizations often authorize multiple servers to accept mail
   addressed to them.  For example, the organization may itself operate
   more than one server, and may also or instead have an agreement with
   other organizations to accept mail as a backup.  Authorized servers
   are generally listed in MX records as described in RFC 5321.  When
   more than one server accepts mail for the domain-part of a mailbox,
   it is strongly advised that either all or none of them support the
   UTF8SMTPbis extension.  Otherwise, surprising downgrades can happen
   during temporary failures, which users might perceive as a serious
   reliability issue.

3.6.3.  Trace Information

   When an SMTP server receives a message for delivery or further
   processing, it MUST insert trace ("time stamp" or "Received")
   information at the beginning of the message content.  "Time stamp" or
   "Received" appears in the form of "Received:" lines.  The most
   important use of Received: lines is for debugging mail faults.  When
   the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a message, it
   inserts a Return-path line at the beginning of the mail data.  The
   primary purpose of the Return-path is to designate the address to
   which messages indicating non-delivery or other mail system failures
   are to be sent.  For the trace information, this memo updates the
   time stamp line and the return path line [RFC5321] formally defined
   as follows:

      uReturn-path-line = "Return-Path:" FWS uReverse-path <CRLF>
          ; Replaces Return-path-line in Section 4.4 of RFC 5321
          ; uReverse-path is defined in Section 4 of RFC5335bis

      uTime-stamp-line = "Received:" FWS uStamp <CRLF>
          ; Replaces Time-stamp-line in Section 4.4 of RFC 5321

      uStamp = From-domain By-domain uOpt-info ";"  FWS date-time
          ; Replaces Stamp in Section 4.4 of RFC 5321

      uOpt-info = [Via] [With] [ID] [uFor]
          ; Replaces Opt-info in Section 4.4 of RFC 5321
          ; The protocol value for With will allow a UTF8SMTPbis value

      uFor = "FOR" ( FWS (uPath / uMailbox) ) CFWS
          ; Replaces For in Section 4.4 of RFC 5321
          ; uMailbox is defined in section 3.3 of this document
      uPath = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] uMailbox ">"
          ; Replace Path in RFC 5321, section 4.1.2
          ; A-d-l is defined in RFC 5321, section 4.1.2
          ; uMailbox is defined in section 3.3 of this document

   Except in the 'uFor' clause and 'uReverse-path' value where non-ASCII
   domain names may be used, internationalized domain names in Received
   fields MUST be transmitted in the form of ACE labels.  The protocol
   value of the WITH clause when this extension is used is one of the
   UTF8SMTPbis values specified in the "IANA Considerations" section of
   this document.

3.6.4.  UTF-8 Strings in Replies

3.6.4.1.  MAIL and RCPT Commands

   If the client issues a RCPT command containing non-ASCII characters,
   the SMTP server is permitted to use UTF-8 characters in the email
   address associated with 251 and 551 response codes.

   If an SMTP client follows this specification and sends any RCPT
   commands containing non-ASCII addresses, it MUST be able to accept
   and process 251 or 551 responses containing UTF-8 email addresses.
   If a given RCPT command does not include a non-ASCII envelope
   address, the server MUST NOT return a 251 or 551 response containing
   a non-ASCII mailbox.  Instead, it MUST transform such responses into
   250 or 550 responses that do not contain addresses.

3.6.4.2.  VRFY and EXPN Commands and the UTF8REPLY Parameter

   If the VRFY and EXPN commands are transmitted with the optional
   parameter "UTF8REPLY", it indicates the client can accept UTF-8
   strings in replies to those commands.  This allows the server to use
   UTF-8 strings in mailbox names and full names that occur in replies
   without concern that the client might be confused by them.  An SMTP
   client that conforms to this specification MUST accept and correctly
   process replies from the VRFY and EXPN commands that contain UTF-8
   strings.  However, the SMTP server MUST NOT use UTF-8 strings in
   replies if the SMTP client does not specifically allow such replies
   by transmitting this parameter.  Most replies do not require that a
   mailbox name be included in the returned text, and therefore UTF-8 is
   not needed in them.  Some replies, notably those resulting from
   successful execution of the VRFY and EXPN commands, do include the
   mailbox, making the provisions of this section important.

   VERIFY (VRFY) and EXPAND (EXPN) command syntaxes are changed to:

       "VRFY" SP ( uLocal-part / uMailbox ) [ SP "UTF8REPLY" ] CRLF
              ; uLocal-part and uMailbox are defined in
              ; Section 3.3 of this document.

       "EXPN" SP ( uLocal-part / uMailbox ) [ SP "UTF8REPLY" ] CRLF
              ; uLocal-part and uMailbox are defined in
              ; Section 3.3 of this document.

   The "UTF8REPLY" parameter does not use a value.  If the reply to a
   VERIFY (VRFY) or EXPAND (EXPN) command requires UTF-8, but the SMTP
   client did not use the "UTF8REPLY" parameter, then the server MUST
   use either the response code 252 or 550.  Response code 252, defined
   in [RFC5321], means "Cannot VRFY user, but will accept the message
   and attempt the delivery".  Response code 550, also defined in
   [RFC5321], means "Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable".
   When the server supports enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463],
   the enhanced response code as specified below is used.  Using the
   "UTF8REPLY" parameter with a VERIFY (VRFY) or EXPAND (EXPN) command
   enables UTF-8 replies for that command only.

   If a normal success response (i.e., 250) is returned, the response
   MAY include the full name of the user and MUST include the mailbox of
   the user.  It MUST be in either of the following forms:

         User Name <uMailbox>
            ; uMailbox is defined in Section 3.3 of this document.
            ; User Name can contain non-ASCII characters.

         uMailbox
            ; uMailbox is defined in Section 3.3 of this document.

   If the SMTP reply requires UTF-8 strings, but UTF-8 is not allowed in
   the reply, and the server supports enhanced mail system status codes
   [RFC3463], the enhanced response code is either "X.6.8" or "X.6.10"
   [RFC5248], meaning "A reply containing a UTF-8 string is required to
   show the mailbox name, but that form of response is not permitted by
   the client".

   If the SMTP client does not support the UTF8SMTPbis extension, but
   receives a UTF-8 string in a reply, it may not be able to properly
   report the reply to the user, and some clients might crash.
   Internationalized messages in replies are only allowed in the
   commands under the situations described above.  Under any other
   circumstances, UTF-8 text MUST NOT appear in the reply.

   Although UTF-8 is needed to represent email addresses in responses
   under the rules specified in this section, this extension does not
   permit the use of UTF-8 for any other purposes.  SMTP servers MUST
   NOT include non-ASCII characters in replies except in the limited
   cases specifically permitted in this section.

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA should add a new value "UTF8SMTPbis" to the SMTP Service
   Extension subregistry of the Mail Parameters registry, according to
   the following data:

       +-------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
       | Keywords    | Description                     | Reference |
       +-------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
       | UTF8SMTPbis | Internationalized email address | [RFCXXXX] |
       +-------------+---------------------------------+-----------+

   This document updates the values to the SMTP Enhanced Status Code
   subregistry of the Mail Parameters registry, following the guidance
   in Sections 3.4 and 3.6.4.2 of this document, and being based on
   [RFC5248].  The registration data is as follows:

     Code:               X.6.7
     Sample Text:        UTF-8 addresses not permitted
                             for that sender/recipient
     Associated basic status code:  553, 550
     Description:        This indicates the reception of a MAIL or RCPT
                         command that rUTF-8 addresses are not permitted
     Defined:            RFC XXXX  (Standard track)
     Submitter:          Jiankang YAO
     Change controller:  IESG.

      Code:               X.6.8
      Sample Text:        UTF-8 string reply is required,
                          but not permitted by the client
      Associated basic status code:  553, 550
      Description:        This indicates that a reply containing a UTF-8
                          string is required to show the mailbox name,
                          but that form of response is not
                          permitted by the client.
      Defined:            RFC XXXX  (Standard track)
      Submitter:          Jiankang YAO
      Change controller:  IESG.

       Code:               X.6.9
       Sample Text:        UTF-8 header message can't can not be transferred
                           to one or more recipient so the message
                                                   must be bounced
       Associated basic status code:  550
       Description:        This indicates that transaction failed
                           after the final "." of the DATA command.
       Defined:            RFC XXXX  (Standard track)
       Submitter:          Jiankang YAO
       Change controller:  IESG.

      Code:               X.6.10
      Sample Text:        UTF-8 string reply is required,
                          but not permitted by the client
      Associated basic status code:  252
      Description:        This indicates that a reply containing a UTF-8
                          string is required to show the mailbox name,
                          but that form of response is not
                          permitted by the client.
      Defined:            RFC XXXX  (Standard track)
      Submitter:          Jiankang YAO
      Change controller:  IESG.

   The "Mail Transmission Types" registry under the Mail Parameters
   registry is requested to be updated to include the following new
   entries:

   +---------------+-----------------------------+---------------------+
   | WITH protocol | Description                 | Reference           |
   | types         |                             |                     |
   +---------------+-----------------------------+---------------------+
   | UTF8SMTPbis   | UTF8SMTPbis with Service    | [RFCXXXX]           |
   |               | Extensions                  |                     |
   | UTF8SMTPbisA  | UTF8SMTPbis with SMTP AUTH  | [RFC4954] [RFCXXXX] |
   | UTF8SMTPbisS  | UTF8SMTPbis with STARTTLS   | [RFC3207] [RFCXXXX] |
   | UTF8SMTPbisSA | UTF8SMTPbis with both       | [RFC3207] [RFC4954] |
   |               | STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH      | [RFCXXXX]           |
   +---------------+-----------------------------+---------------------+

5.  Security Considerations

   See the extended security considerations discussion in the framework
   document [RFC4952bis].

6.  Acknowledgements

   This document revised the [RFC5336]document based on the EAI WG's
   discussion result.  Many EAI WG members did some tests and
   implementations to move this document to the Standard Track document.
   Significant comments and suggestions were received from Xiaodong LEE,
   Nai-Wen Hsu, Yangwoo KO, Yoshiro YONEYA, and other members of the JET
   team and were incorporated into the specification.  Additional
   important comments and suggestions, and often specific text, were
   contributed by many members of the WG and design team.  Those
   contributions include material from John C Klensin, Charles Lindsey,
   Dave Crocker, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Marcos Sanz, Chris Newman,
   Martin Duerst, Edmon Chung, Tony Finch, Kari Hurtta, Randall Gellens,
   Frank Ellermann, Alexey Melnikov, Pete Resnick, S. Moonesamy, Soobok
   Lee, Shawn Steele, Alfred Hoenes, Miguel Garcia, Magnus Westerlund,
   and Lars Eggert.  Of course, none of the individuals are necessarily
   responsible for the combination of ideas represented here.

7.  Change History

   [[anchor11: RFC Editor: Please remove this section.]]

7.1.  draft-yao-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00

   Applied errata suggested by Alfred Hoenes.

7.2.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 00

   Applied the changes suggested by the EAI new charter.

7.3.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 01

   Applied the changes suggested by 78 IETF EAI meeting.

7.4.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 02

   remove the appendix since rfc4952bis has added this material

   improve the text

   remove the text about no body parameter

7.5.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 03

   improve the text

7.6.  draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis: Version 04

   update the abstract

   improve the text

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [ASCII]    American National Standards Institute (formerly United
              States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
              Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.

   [RFC1652]  Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
              Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",
              RFC 1652, July 1994.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3461]  Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
              Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)",
              RFC 3461, January 2003.

   [RFC3463]  Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
              RFC 3463, January 2003.

   [RFC3464]  Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
              for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
              January 2003.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4409]  Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
              RFC 4409, April 2006.

   [RFC4952bis]
              Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
              Internationalized Email", RFC 4952, July 2010.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC5248]  Hansen , T. and J. Klensin, "A Registry for SMTP Enhanced
              Mail System Status Codes", RFC 5248, June 2008.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5335bis]
              Abel, Y., Ed., "Internationalized Email Headers",
              RFC 5335, August 2010.

   [RFC5337bis]
              Newman, C. and A. Melnikov, Ed., "Internationalized
              Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications", RFC 5337,
              August 2008.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalizing Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA definitions)", RFC 5890, June 2010.

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC0974]  Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system",
              RFC 974, January 1986.

   [RFC2033]  Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,
              October 1996.

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

   [RFC2047]  Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
              Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
              RFC 2047, November 1996.

   [RFC3030]  Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission
              of Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 3030,
              December 2000.

   [RFC3207]  Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
              Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002.

   [RFC4954]  Siemborski, R. and A. Melnikov, "SMTP Service Extension
              for Authentication", RFC 4954, July 2007.

   [RFC5336]  Yao, J. and W. Mao, "SMTP Extension for Internationalized
              Email Addresses", RFC 5336, September 2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Jiankang YAO
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing

   Phone: +86 10 58813007
   Email: yaojk@cnnic.cn
   Wei MAO
   CNNIC
   No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing

   Phone: +86 10 58812230
   Email: maowei_ietf@cnnic.cn