draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt   draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-04.txt 
Internet Draft E. Allman Internet Draft E. Allman
draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt Sendmail, Inc. draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-04.txt Sendmail, Inc.
Valid for six months November 2, 2001 Valid for six months October 21, 2002
Updates: RFC 1893 Updates: RFC 1893
The Message/Tracking-Status MIME Extension An Extensible Message Format for Message Tracking Responses
<draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-03.txt> <draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-04.txt>
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference at any 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."
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.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at: The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at:
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of the This document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted
skipping to change at page 7, line 6 skipping to change at page 7, line 28
3.5. Interaction Between MTAs and LDAs 3.5. Interaction Between MTAs and LDAs
A message that has been delivered to a Local Delivery Agent A message that has been delivered to a Local Delivery Agent
(LDA) that understands message tracking (in particular, an LDA (LDA) that understands message tracking (in particular, an LDA
speaking LMTP [RFC-LMTP] that supports the MTRK extension) speaking LMTP [RFC-LMTP] that supports the MTRK extension)
SHOULD pass the tracking request to the LDA. In this case, the SHOULD pass the tracking request to the LDA. In this case, the
Action field for the MTA->LDA exchange will look the same as a Action field for the MTA->LDA exchange will look the same as a
transfer to a compliant MTA; that is, a "transferred" tracking transfer to a compliant MTA; that is, a "transferred" tracking
status will be issued. status will be issued.
4. Security Issues 4. Security Considerations
4.1. Forgery 4.1. Forgery
Malicious servers may attempt to subvert message tracking Malicious servers may attempt to subvert message tracking
and return false information. This could result in misdirection and return false information. This could result in misdirection
or misinterpretation of results. or misinterpretation of results.
4.2. Confidentiality 4.2. Confidentiality
Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There
skipping to change at page 7, line 44 skipping to change at page 8, line 10
(b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a (b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a
"delivered" tracking status, re-sending the message to the "delivered" tracking status, re-sending the message to the
confidential forwarding address, and disabling further confidential forwarding address, and disabling further
message tracking requests. message tracking requests.
The tracking algorithms MUST NOT allow tracking through The tracking algorithms MUST NOT allow tracking through
list expansions. When a message is delivered to a list, a list expansions. When a message is delivered to a list, a
tracking request MUST respond with an "expanded" tracking status tracking request MUST respond with an "expanded" tracking status
and MUST NOT display the contents of the list. and MUST NOT display the contents of the list.
5. Acknowledgements 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is to register the SMTP extension defined in section 3.
6. Acknowledgements
Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this draft, Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this draft,
including Tony Hansen, Philip Hazel, Alexey Melnikov, Lyndon including Tony Hansen, Philip Hazel, Alexey Melnikov, Lyndon
Nerenberg, Chris Newman, Gregory Neil Shapiro, and Dan Wing. Nerenberg, Chris Newman, Gregory Neil Shapiro, and Dan Wing.
6. References 7. Normative References
[DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL]
T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.'' T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.''
draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000. draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000.
[DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP]
T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query Protocol.'' draft-ietf- T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query Protocol.'' draft-ietf-
msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt. November 2000. msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt. November 2000.
[DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT] [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT]
E. Allman, ``SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking.'' E. Allman, ``SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking.''
draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt. December 2000. draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-04.txt. October 2002.
[RFC-ABNF] [RFC-ABNF]
Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997. Syntax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997.
[RFC-DSN-REPT]
G. Vaudreuil, ``The Multipart/Report Content Type for the
Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages.'' RFC 1892.
January 1996.
[RFC-DSN-SMTP]
K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
Notifications.'' RFC 1891. January 1996.
[RFC-DSN-STAT]
K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1894. January 1996.
[RFC-EMSSC] [RFC-EMSSC]
G. Vaudreuil, ``Enhanced Mail System Status Codes.'' RFC G. Vaudreuil, ``Enhanced Mail System Status Codes.'' RFC
1893. January 1996. 1893. January 1996.
[RFC-ESMTP]
Rose, M., Stefferud, E., Crocker, D., Klensin, J. and N.
Freed, ``SMTP Service Extensions.'' STD 10, RFC 1869.
November 1995.
[RFC-HOSTREQ] [RFC-HOSTREQ]
R. Braden (ed.), ``Requirements for Internet Hosts -- R. Braden (ed.), ``Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Application and Support.'' STD 3, RFC 1123. October 1989. Application and Support.'' STD 3, RFC 1123. October 1989.
[RFC-KEYWORDS] [RFC-KEYWORDS]
S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997. Requirement Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997.
[RFC-LMTP]
J. Myers, ``Local Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2033.
October 1996.
[RFC-MDN]
R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message
Disposition Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998.
[RFC-MIME] [RFC-MIME]
N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996. Bodies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996.
[RFC-MSGFMT] [RFC-MSGFMT]
P. Resnick, editor, ``Internet Message Format.'' RFC 2822. P. Resnick, editor, ``Internet Message Format.'' RFC 2822.
April 2001. April 2001.
[RFC-RELATED] [RFC-RELATED]
E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC
2387. August 1998. 2387. August 1998.
7. Author's Address 8. Informational References
[RFC-DSN-SMTP]
K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
Notifications.'' RFC 1891. January 1996.
[RFC-DSN-STAT]
K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1894. January 1996.
[RFC-ESMTP]
Rose, M., Stefferud, E., Crocker, D., Klensin, J. and N.
Freed, ``SMTP Service Extensions.'' STD 10, RFC 1869.
November 1995.
[RFC-LMTP]
J. Myers, ``Local Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2033.
October 1996.
[RFC-MDN]
R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message
Disposition Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998.
9. Author's Address
Eric Allman Eric Allman
Sendmail, Inc. Sendmail, Inc.
6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor 6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608 Emeryville, CA 94608
U.S.A. U.S.A.
E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM
Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Phone: +1 510 594 5501
Fax: +1 510 594 5429 Fax: +1 510 594 5429
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/