draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-05.txt   rfc3886.txt 
Internet Draft E. Allman Network Working Group E. Allman
draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-05.txt Sendmail, Inc. Request for Comments: 3886 Sendmail, Inc.
Valid for six months March 19, 2003 Updates: 3463 September 2004
Updates: RFC 1893 Category: Standards Track
An Extensible Message Format for Message Tracking Responses
<draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-05.txt>
Status of This Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 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 An Extensible Message Format for Message Tracking Responses
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: Status of this Memo
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
This document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of the Abstract
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted
to the ietf-msgtrk@imc.org mailing list. An archive of the mailing
list may be found at
http://www.imc.org/ietf-msgtrk/index.html Message Tracking is expected to be used to determine the status of
undelivered e-mail upon request. Tracking is used in conjunction
with Delivery Status Notifications (DSN) and Message Disposition
Notifications (MDN); generally, a message tracking request will be
issued only when a DSN or MDN has not been received within a
reasonable timeout period.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This memo defines a MIME content-type for message tracking status in
the same spirit as RFC 3464, "An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications". It is to be issued upon a request as
described in "Message Tracking Query Protocol". This memo defines
only the format of the status information. An extension to SMTP to
label messages for further tracking and request tracking status is
defined in a separate memo.
1. Abstract 1. Introduction
Message Tracking is expected to be used to determine the Message Tracking is expected to be used to determine the status of
status of undelivered e-mail upon request. Tracking is used in undelivered e-mail upon request. Tracking is used in conjunction
conjunction with Delivery Status Notifications [RFC-DSN-SMTP] and with Delivery Status Notifications (DSN) [RFC-DSN-SMTP] and Message
Message Disposition Notifications [RFC-MDN]; generally, a message Disposition Notifications (MDN) [RFC-MDN]; generally, a message
tracking request will be issued only when a DSN or MDN has not been tracking request will be issued only when a DSN or MDN has not been
received within a reasonable timeout period. received within a reasonable timeout period.
This memo defines a MIME [RFC-MIME] content-type for message This memo defines a MIME [RFC-MIME] content-type for message tracking
tracking status in the same spirit as RFC 1894, ``An Extensible status in the same spirit as RFC 3464, "An Extensible Message Format
Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications'' [RFC-DSN-STAT]. for Delivery Status Notifications" [RFC-DSN-STAT]. It is to be
It is to be issued upon a request as described in ``Message issued upon a request as described in "Message Tracking Query
Tracking Query Protocol'' [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP]. This memo defines Protocol" [RFC-MTRK-MTQP]. This memo defines only the format of the
only the format of the status information. An extension to SMTP status information. An extension to SMTP [RFC-ESMTP] to label
[RFC-ESMTP] to label messages for further tracking and request messages for further tracking and request tracking status is defined
tracking status is defined in a separate memo [DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT]. in a separate memo [RFC-MTRK-SMTPEXT].
2. Other Documents and Conformance 2. Other Documents and Conformance
The model used for Message Tracking is described in [DRAFT- The model used for Message Tracking is described in [RFC-MTRK-MODEL].
MTRK-MODEL].
Message tracking is intended for use as a "last resort" Message tracking is intended for use as a "last resort" mechanism.
mechanism. Normally, Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) [RFC- Normally, Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) [RFC-DSN-SMTP] and
DSN-SMTP] and Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [RFC-MDN] Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [RFC-MDN] would provide the
would provide the primary delivery status. Only if no response is primary delivery status. Only if no response is received from either
received from either of these mechanisms would Message Tracking be of these mechanisms would Message Tracking be used.
used.
This document is based on [RFC-DSN-STAT]. Sections 1.3 This document is based on [RFC-DSN-STAT]. Sections 1.3
(Terminology), 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields), 2.1.2 (Terminology), 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields), 2.1.2
("*-type" subfields), and 2.1.3 (Lexical tokens imported from RFC ("*-type" subfields), and 2.1.3 (Lexical tokens imported from RFC
822) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] are included into this document by 822) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] are included into this document by reference.
reference. Other sections are further incorporated as described Other sections are further incorporated as described herein.
herein.
Syntax notation in this document conforms to [RFC-ABNF]. Syntax notation in this document conforms to [RFC-ABNF].
The following lexical tokens, defined in [RFC-MSGFMT], are The following lexical tokens, defined in [RFC-MSGFMT], are used in
used in the ABNF grammar for MTSNs: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, the ABNF grammar for MTSNs: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, DIGIT, LF,
DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical token is
token is defined in [RFC-HOSTREQ]. defined in [RFC-HOSTREQ].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC-
[RFC-KEYWORDS]. KEYWORDS].
3. Format of a Message Tracking Status Notification 3. Format of a Message Tracking Status Notification
A Message Tracking Status Notification (MTSN) is intended to A Message Tracking Status Notification (MTSN) is intended to be
be returned as the body of a Message Tracking request [DRAFT-MTRK- returned as the body of a Message Tracking request [RFC-MTRK-MTQP].
MTQP]. The actual body MUST be a multipart/related [RFC-RELATED] The actual body MUST be a multipart/related [RFC-RELATED] with type
with type parameter of "message/tracking-status"; each subpart MUST parameter of "message/tracking-status"; each subpart MUST be of type
be of type "message/tracking-status" as described herein. The "message/tracking-status" as described herein. The multipart/related
multipart/related body can include multiple message/tracking-status body can include multiple message/tracking-status parts if an MTQP
parts if an MTQP server chains requests to the next server; see server chains requests to the next server; see [RFC-MTRK-MODEL] and
[DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] and [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] for more information about [RFC-MTRK-MTQP] for more information about chaining.
chaining.
3.1. The message/tracking-status content-type 3.1. The message/tracking-status content-type
The message/tracking-status content-type is defined as The message/tracking-status content-type is defined as follows:
follows:
MIME type name: message MIME type name: message
MIME subtype name: tracking-status MIME subtype name: tracking-status
Optional parameters: none Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and
MUST be used to maintain readability MUST be used to maintain readability
when viewed by non-MIME mail readers. when viewed by non-MIME mail readers.
Security considerations: discussed in section 4 of this memo. Security considerations: discussed in section 4 of this memo.
The body of a message/tracking-status is modeled after The body of a message/tracking-status is modeled after [RFC-DSN-
[RFC-DSN-STAT]. That body consists of one or more "fields" STAT]. That body consists of one or more "fields" formatted to
formatted to according to the ABNF of RFC 2822 header "fields" according to the ABNF of RFC 2822 header "fields" (see [RFC-MSGFMT]).
(see [RFC-MSGFMT]). The per-message fields appear first, The per-message fields appear first, followed by a blank line.
followed by a blank line. Following the per-message fields are Following the per-message fields are one or more groups of per-
one or more groups of per-recipient fields. Each group of per- recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by
recipient fields is preceded by a blank line. Note that there a blank line. Note that there will be a blank line between the final
will be a blank line between the final per-recipient field and per-recipient field and the MIME boundary, since one CRLF is
the MIME boundary, since one CRLF is necessary to terminate the necessary to terminate the field, and a second is necessary to
field, and a second is necessary to introduce the MIME boundary. introduce the MIME boundary. Formally, the syntax of the
Formally, the syntax of the message/tracking-status content is message/tracking-status content is as follows:
as follows:
tracking-status-content = tracking-status-content =
per-message-fields 1*( CRLF per-recipient-fields ) per-message-fields 1*( CRLF per-recipient-fields )
The per-message fields are described in section 3.2. The per- The per-message fields are described in section 3.2. The per-
recipient fields are described in section 3.3. recipient fields are described in section 3.3.
3.1.1. General conventions for MTSN fields 3.1.1. General conventions for MTSN fields
Section 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields) of Section 2.1.1 (General conventions for DSN fields) of [RFC-DSN-STAT]
[RFC-DSN-STAT] is included herein by reference. Notably, the is included herein by reference. Notably, the definition of xtext is
definition of xtext is identical to that of that document. identical to that of that document.
3.1.2. *-type subfields 3.1.2. *-type subfields
Section 2.1.2 (*-type subfields) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] is Section 2.1.2 (*-type subfields) of [RFC-DSN-STAT] is included herein
included herein by reference. Notably, the definitions of by reference. Notably, the definitions of address-type, diagnostic-
address-type, diagnostic-type, and MTA-name type are type, and MTA-name type are identical to that of RFC 3464.
identical to that of RFC 1894.
3.2. Per-Message MTSN Fields 3.2. Per-Message MTSN Fields
Some fields of an MTSN apply to all of the addresses in a Some fields of an MTSN apply to all of the addresses in a single
single envelope. These fields may appear at most once in any envelope. These fields may appear at most once in any MTSN. These
MTSN. These fields are used to correlate the MTSN with the fields are used to correlate the MTSN with the original message
original message transaction and to provide additional transaction and to provide additional information which may be useful
information which may be useful to gateways. to gateways.
per-message-fields = per-message-fields =
original-envelope-id-field CRLF original-envelope-id-field CRLF
reporting-mta-field CRLF reporting-mta-field CRLF
arrival-date-field CRLF arrival-date-field CRLF
*( extension-field CRLF ) *( extension-field CRLF )
3.2.1. The Original-Envelope-Id field 3.2.1. The Original-Envelope-Id field
The Original-Envelope-Id field is defined as in section The Original-Envelope-Id field is defined as in section 2.2.1 of
2.2.1 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED.
3.2.2. The Reporting-MTA field 3.2.2. The Reporting-MTA field
The Reporting-MTA field is defined as in section 2.2.2 The Reporting-MTA field is defined as in section 2.2.2 of [RFC-DSN-
of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. STAT]. This field is REQUIRED.
3.2.3. The Arrival-Date field 3.2.3. The Arrival-Date field
The Arrival-Date field is defined as in section 2.2.5 of The Arrival-Date field is defined as in section 2.2.5 of [RFC-DSN-
[RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. STAT]. This field is REQUIRED.
3.3. Per-Recipient MTSN fields 3.3. Per-Recipient MTSN fields
An MTSN contains information about attempts to deliver a An MTSN contains information about attempts to deliver a message to
message to one or more recipients. The delivery information for one or more recipients. The delivery information for any particular
any particular recipient is contained in a group of contiguous recipient is contained in a group of contiguous per-recipient fields.
per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line.
preceded by a blank line.
The syntax for the group of per-recipient fields is as The syntax for the group of per-recipient fields is as follows:
follows:
per-recipient-fields = per-recipient-fields =
original-recipient-field CRLF original-recipient-field CRLF
final-recipient-field CRLF final-recipient-field CRLF
action-field CRLF action-field CRLF
status-field CRLF status-field CRLF
[ remote-mta-field CRLF ] [ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ] [ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ] [ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF ) *( extension-field CRLF )
3.3.1. Original-Recipient field 3.3.1. Original-Recipient field
The Original-Recipient field is defined as in section The Original-Recipient field is defined as in section 2.3.1 of [RFC-
2.3.1 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED.
3.3.2. Final-Recipient field 3.3.2. Final-Recipient field
The required Final-Recipient field is defined as in The required Final-Recipient field is defined as in section 2.3.2 of
section 2.3.2 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED. [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED.
3.3.3. Action field 3.3.3. Action field
The required Action field indicates the action performed The required Action field indicates the action performed by the
by the Reporting-MTA as a result of its attempt to deliver Reporting-MTA as a result of its attempt to deliver the message to
the message to this recipient address. This field MUST be this recipient address. This field MUST be present for each
present for each recipient named in the MTSN. The syntax is recipient named in the MTSN. The syntax is as defined in RFC 3464.
as defined in section 2.3.3 of RFC 1894. This field is This field is REQUIRED.
REQUIRED.
Valid actions are: Valid actions are:
failed The message could not be delivered. If DSNs failed The message could not be delivered. If DSNs have been
have been enabled, a "failed" DSN should already enabled, a "failed" DSN should already have been
have been returned. returned.
delayed The message is currently waiting in the MTA delayed The message is currently waiting in the MTA queue for
queue for future delivery. Essentially, this future delivery. Essentially, this action means "the
action means "the message is located, and it is message is located, and it is here."
here."
delivered The message has been successfully delivered to delivered The message has been successfully delivered to the final
the final recipient. This includes "delivery" recipient. This includes "delivery" to a mailing list
to a mailing list exploder. It does not exploder. It does not indicate that the message has
indicate that the message has been read. No been read. No further information is available; in
further information is available; in particular, particular, the tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt
the tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt further further "downstream" tracking requests.
"downstream" tracking requests.
expanded The message has been successfully delivered to expanded The message has been successfully delivered to the
the recipient address as specified by the recipient address as specified by the sender, and
sender, and forwarded by the Reporting-MTA forwarded by the Reporting-MTA beyond that destination
beyond that destination to multiple additional to multiple additional recipient addresses. However,
recipient addresses. However, these additional these additional addresses are not trackable, and the
addresses are not trackable, and the tracking tracking agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "downstream"
agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "downstream" tracking requests.
tracking requests.
relayed The message has been delivered into an relayed The message has been delivered into an environment that
environment that does not support message does not support message tracking. No further
tracking. No further information is available; information is available; in particular, the tracking
in particular, the tracking agent SHOULD NOT agent SHOULD NOT attempt further "downstream" tracking
attempt further "downstream" tracking requests. requests.
transferred The message has been transferred to another transferred The message has been transferred to another MTRK-
MTRK-compliant MTA. The tracking agent SHOULD compliant MTA. The tracking agent SHOULD attempt
attempt further "downstream" tracking requests further "downstream" tracking requests unless that
unless that information is already given in a information is already given in a chaining response.
chaining response.
opaque The message may or may not have been seen by opaque The message may or may not have been seen by this
this system. No further information is system. No further information is available or
available or forthcoming. forthcoming.
There may be some confusion between when to use There may be some confusion between when to use "expanded" versus
"expanded" versus "delivered". Whenever possible, "expanded" "delivered". Whenever possible, "expanded" should be used when the
should be used when the MTA knows that the message will be MTA knows that the message will be sent to multiple addresses.
sent to multiple addresses. However, in some cases the However, in some cases the delivery occurs to a program which,
delivery occurs to a program which, unknown to the MTA, unknown to the MTA, causes mailing list expansion; in the extreme
causes mailing list expansion; in the extreme case, the case, the delivery may be to a real mailbox that has the side effect
delivery may be to a real mailbox that has the side effect of of list expansion. If the MTA cannot ensure that this delivery will
list expansion. If the MTA cannot ensure that this delivery cause list expansion, it should set the action to "delivered".
will cause list expansion, it should set the action to
"delivered".
3.3.4. Status field 3.3.4. Status field
The Status field is defined as in RFC 1894 section The Status field is defined as in RFC 3464. A new code is added to
2.3.4. A new code is added to RFC 1893 [RFC-EMSSC], RFC 3463 [RFC-EMSSC], "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
"Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
X.1.9 Message relayed to non-compliant mailer" X.1.9 Message relayed to non-compliant mailer"
The mailbox address specified was valid, but the The mailbox address specified was valid, but the message has
message has been relayed to a system that does not been relayed to a system that does not speak this protocol; no
speak this protocol; no further information can be further information can be provided.
provided.
A 2.1.9 Status field MUST be used exclusively with a
"relayed" Action field. This field is REQUIRED.
3.3.5. Remote-MTA field A 2.1.9 Status field MUST be used exclusively with a "relayed" Action
field. This field is REQUIRED.
The Remote-MTA field is defined as in section Reference 3.3.5. Remote-MTA field
2.3.5 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field MUST NOT be included if
no delivery attempts have been made or if the Action field
has value "opaque". If delivery to some agent other than an
MTA (for example, a Local Delivery Agent) then this field MAY
be included, giving the name of the host on which that agent
was contacted.
3.3.6. Last-Attempt-Date field The Remote-MTA field is defined as in section Reference 2.3.5 of
[RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field MUST NOT be included if no delivery
attempts have been made or if the Action field has value "opaque".
If delivery to some agent other than an MTA (for example, a Local
Delivery Agent) then this field MAY be included, giving the name of
the host on which that agent was contacted.
The Last-Attempt-Date field is defined as in section 3.3.6. Last-Attempt-Date field
Reference 2.3.7 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED if
any delivery attempt has been made and the Action field does
not have value "opaque", in which case it will specify when
it last attempted to deliver this message to another MTA or
other Delivery Agent. This field MUST NOT be included if no
delivery attempts have been made.
3.3.7. Will-Retry-Until field The Last-Attempt-Date field is defined as in section Reference 2.3.7
of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. This field is REQUIRED if any delivery attempt
has been made and the Action field does not have value "opaque", in
which case it will specify when it last attempted to deliver this
message to another MTA or other Delivery Agent. This field MUST NOT
be included if no delivery attempts have been made.
The Will-Retry-Until field is defined as in section 3.3.7. Will-Retry-Until field
Reference 2.3.8 of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. If the message is not in
the local queue or the Action field has the value ``opaque''
the Will-Retry-Until field MUST NOT be included; otherwise,
this field SHOULD be included.
3.4. Extension fields The Will-Retry-Until field is defined as in section Reference 2.3.9
of [RFC-DSN-STAT]. If the message is not in the local queue or the
Action field has the value "opaque" the Will-Retry-Until field MUST
NOT be included; otherwise, this field SHOULD be included.
Future extension fields may be defined as defined in 3.4. Extension fields
section 2.4 of [RFC-DSN-STAT].
3.5. Interaction Between MTAs and LDAs Future extension fields may be defined as defined in section 2.4 of
[RFC-DSN-STAT].
A message that has been delivered to a Local Delivery Agent 3.5. Interaction Between MTAs and LDAs
(LDA) that understands message tracking (in particular, an LDA
speaking LMTP [RFC-LMTP] that supports the MTRK extension) A message that has been delivered to a Local Delivery Agent (LDA)
SHOULD pass the tracking request to the LDA. In this case, the that understands message tracking (in particular, an LDA speaking
Action field for the MTA->LDA exchange will look the same as a LMTP [RFC-LMTP] that supports the MTRK extension) SHOULD pass the
transfer to a compliant MTA; that is, a "transferred" tracking tracking request to the LDA. In this case, the Action field for the
status will be issued. MTA->LDA exchange will look the same as a transfer to a compliant
MTA; that is, a "transferred" tracking status will be issued.
4. Security Considerations 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
and return false information. This could result in misdirection false information. This could result in misdirection or
or misinterpretation of results. misinterpretation of results.
4.2. Confidentiality 4.2. Confidentiality
Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There may be cases
may be cases in which a message recipient is autoforwarding in which a message recipient is autoforwarding messages but does not
messages but does not wish to divulge the address to which the wish to divulge the address to which the messages are autoforwarded.
messages are autoforwarded. The desire for such confidentiality The desire for such confidentiality will probably be heightened as
will probably be heightened as "wireless mailboxes", such as "wireless mailboxes", such as pagers, become more widely used as
pagers, become more widely used as autoforward addresses. autoforward addresses.
MTA authors are encouraged to provide a mechanism which MTA authors are encouraged to provide a mechanism which enables the
enables the end user to preserve the confidentiality of a end user to preserve the confidentiality of a forwarding address.
forwarding address. Depending on the degree of confidentiality Depending on the degree of confidentiality required, and the nature
required, and the nature of the environment to which a message of the environment to which a message were being forwarded, this
were being forwarded, this might be accomplished by one or more might be accomplished by one or more of:
of:
(a) respond with a "relayed" tracking status when a message is (a) respond with a "relayed" tracking status when a message is
forwarded to a confidential forwarding address, and forwarded to a confidential forwarding address, and disabling
disabling further message tracking requests. further message tracking requests.
(b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a (b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a "delivered"
"delivered" tracking status, re-sending the message to the tracking status, re-sending the message to the confidential
confidential forwarding address, and disabling further forwarding address, and disabling further message tracking
message tracking requests. requests.
The tracking algorithms MUST NOT allow tracking through The tracking algorithms MUST NOT allow tracking through list
list expansions. When a message is delivered to a list, a expansions. When a message is delivered to a list, a tracking
tracking request MUST respond with an "expanded" tracking status request MUST respond with an "expanded" tracking status and MUST NOT
and MUST NOT display the contents of the list. display the contents of the list.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is to register the SMTP extension defined in section 3. IANA has registered the SMTP extension defined in section 3.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this draft, Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this document,
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.
7. Normative References 7. References
[DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL] 7.1. Normative References
T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Model and Requirements.''
draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt. November 2000.
[DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP] [RFC-MTRK-MODEL] Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Model and
T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query Protocol.'' draft-ietf- Requirements", RFC 3888, September 2004.
msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt. November 2000.
[DRAFT-MTRK-SMTPEXT] [RFC-MTRK-MTQP] Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Query Protocol",
E. Allman, ``SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking.'' RFC 3887, September 2004.
draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-05.txt. March 2003.
[RFC-ABNF] [RFC-MTRK-SMTPEXT] Allman, E., "SMTP Service Extension for Message
Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Tracking", RFC 3885, September 2004.
Syntax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997.
[RFC-EMSSC] [RFC-ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF
G. Vaudreuil, ``Enhanced Mail System Status Codes.'' RFC for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234,
1893. January 1996. November 1997.
[RFC-HOSTREQ] [RFC-EMSSC] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status
R. Braden (ed.), ``Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Codes", RFC 3463, January 2003.
Application and Support.'' STD 3, RFC 1123. October 1989.
[RFC-KEYWORDS] [RFC-HOSTREQ] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet
S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Hosts -- Application and Support", STD 3, RFC
Requirement Levels.'' RFC 2119. March 1997. 1123, October 1989.
[RFC-MIME] [RFC-KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
N. Freed and N. Borenstein, ``Multipurpose Internet Mail Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message March 1997.
Bodies.'' RFC 2045. November 1996.
[RFC-MSGFMT] [RFC-MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose
P. Resnick, editor, ``Internet Message Format.'' RFC 2822. Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format
April 2001. of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November
1996.
[RFC-RELATED] [RFC-MSGFMT] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC
E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.'' RFC 2822, April 2001.
2387. August 1998.
8. Informational References [RFC-RELATED] Levinson, E., "The MIME Multipart/Related
Content-type", RFC 2387, August 1998.
[RFC-DSN-SMTP] 7.2. Informational References
K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
Notifications.'' RFC 1891. January 1996.
[RFC-DSN-STAT] [RFC-DSN-SMTP] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format for Service Extension for Delivery Status
Delivery Status Notifications.'' RFC 1894. January 1996. Notifications (DSNs)", RFC 3461, January 2003.
[RFC-ESMTP] [RFC-DSN-STAT] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible
Rose, M., Stefferud, E., Crocker, D., Klensin, J. and N. Message Format for Delivery Status
Freed, ``SMTP Service Extensions.'' STD 10, RFC 1869. Notifications", RFC 3464, January 2003.
November 1995.
[RFC-LMTP] [RFC-ESMTP] Rose, M., Stefferud, E., Crocker, D., Klensin,
J. Myers, ``Local Mail Transfer Protocol.'' RFC 2033. J., and N. Freed, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD
October 1996. 10, RFC 1869, November 1995.
[RFC-MDN] [RFC-LMTP] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC
R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message 2033, October 1996.
Disposition Notifications.'' RFC 2298. March 1998.
9. Author's Address [RFC-MDN] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, Eds., "Message
Disposition Notifications", RFC 3798, May 2004.
Eric Allman 8. Author's Address
Sendmail, Inc.
6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608
U.S.A.
E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM Eric Allman
Phone: +1 510 594 5501 Sendmail, Inc.
Fax: +1 510 594 5429 6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 510 594 5501
Fax: +1 510 594 5429
EMail: eric@Sendmail.COM
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
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/S HE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 102 change blocks. 
353 lines changed or deleted 295 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/