One document matched: draft-duerst-mailto-bis-04.txt
Differences from draft-duerst-mailto-bis-03.txt
Network Working Group M. Duerst
Internet-Draft Aoyama Gakuin University
Obsoletes: 2368 (if approved) L. Masinter
Intended status: Standards Track Adobe Systems Incorporated
Expires: July 6, 2008 J. Zawinski
DNA Lounge
January 03, 2008
The 'mailto' URI Scheme
draft-duerst-mailto-bis-04
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document defines the format of Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URI) to identify resources that are reached using Internet mail. It
updates the syntax of 'mailto' URIs from [RFC2368] for better
internationalization and compatibility with IRIs ([RFC3987]).
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Syntax of a mailto URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Semantics and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Unsafe Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Deployment of UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Examples Conforming to RFC2368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Examples of Complicated Email Addresses . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. Examples Using UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Registration of the Body Header Field . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Changes between draft 03 and draft 04 . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Changes between draft 02 and draft 03 . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.3. Changes between draft 01 and draft 02 . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.4. Changes between draft 00 and draft 01 . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.5. Changes from RFC 2368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
1. Introduction
The mailto URI scheme is used to identify resources that are reached
using Internet mail. In its simplest form, a mailto URI contains an
Internet mail address. For interactions that require message headers
or message bodies to be specified, the mailto URI scheme also allows
setting mail header fields and the message body.
This specification extends the previous scheme definition to also
allow character data to be percent-encoded based on UTF-8, which
offers a better and more consistent way of dealing with non-ASCII
characters for internationalization.
This specification does not address the needs of the ongoing Email
Address Internationalization effort (see [RFC4952]). In particular,
this specification does not include syntax for fallback addresses.
This may be fixed in a future version of this specification.
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Syntax of a mailto URI
The syntax of a "mailto" URI is described using the ABNF of
[RFC4234], non-terminal definitions from [RFC2822] (domain, dot-atom,
quoted-string) and non-terminal definitions from [STD66] (unreserved,
pct-encoded):
mailtoURI = "mailto:" [ to ] [ headers ]
to = [ addr-spec *("%2C" addr-spec ) ]
headers = "?" header *( "&" header )
header = hname "=" hvalue
hname = *qchar
hvalue = *qchar
addr-spec = local-part "@" domain
local-part = dot-atom / quoted-string
qchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / some-delims
some-delims = "!" / "$" / "'" / "(" / ")" / "*"
/ "+" / "," / ";" / ":" / "@"
"addr-spec" is as specified in [RFC2822], i.e. it is a mail address,
possibly including "phrase" and "comment" components. However, the
following changes apply:
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
1. A number of characters that can appear in "addr-spec" have to be
percent-encoded. These are the characters that cannot appear in
an URI according to [STD66] as well as "%" (because it is used
for percent-encoding) and all the characters in gen-delims except
"@" (i.e. "/", "?", "#", "[" and "]"). Of the characters in sub-
delims, at least the following also have to be percent-encoded:
"&", ";", and "=". Care has to be taken both when encoding as
well as when decoding to make sure these operations are applied
only once.
2. "obs-local-part" and "NO-WS-CTL" as defined in [RFC2822] are not
allowed.
3. Whitespace and comments within "local-part" are not allowed.
They do not have any operational semantics.
4. Percent-encoding can be used to denote non-ASCII characters in
the part of a "mailbox" that denotes a domain name, in order to
denote an internationalized domain name. The considerations for
reg-name in [STD66] apply. In particular, non-ASCII characters
must first be encoded according to UTF-8 [STD63], and then each
octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence must be percent-encoded
to be represented as URI characters. URI producing applications
must not use percent-encoding in domain names unless it is used
to represent a UTF-8 character sequence. When the
internationalized domain name is used to compose a message, the
name must be transformed to the IDNA encoding where appropriate
[RFC3490]. URI producers should provide these domain names in
the IDNA encoding, rather than percent-encoded, if they wish to
maximize interoperability with legacy mailto: URI interpreters.
5. Percent-encoding of non-ASCII octets in the LHS of an email
address is reserved for the internationalization of the LHS.
Non-ASCII characters must first be encoded according to UTF-8
[STD63], and then each octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence
must be percent-encoded to be represented as URI characters. Any
other percent-encoding of non-ASCII characters is prohibited.
When a LHS containing non-ASCII characters will be used to
compose a message, the LHS must be transformed to conform to
whatever encoding may be defined in a future specification for
the internationalization of email addresses.
"hname" and "hvalue" are encodings of an [RFC2822] header field name
and value, respectively. Percent-encoding is needed for the same
characters as listed above for "addr-spec". "hname" is case-
insensitive, but "hvalue" in general is case-sensitive.
The special hname "body" indicates that the associated hvalue is the
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
body of the message. The "body" hname should contain the content for
the first text/plain body part of the message. The "body" hname is
primarily intended for generation of short text messages for
automatic processing (such as "subscribe" messages for mailing
lists), not for general MIME bodies.
Within mailto URIs, the characters "?", "=", and "&" are reserved.
Because the "&" (ampersand) character is reserved in HTML and XML,
any mailto URI which contains an ampersand must be spelled
differently in HTML and XML than in other contexts. A mailto URI
which appears in an HTML or XML document must escape the "&", e.g. as
"&".
Non-ASCII characters can be encoded in hvalue as follows:
1. MIME encoded words (as defined in [RFC2047]) are permitted in
header values, but not in an hvalue of a "body" hname.
2. Non-ASCII characters can be encoded according to UTF-8 [STD63],
and then each octet of the corresponding UTF-8 sequence is
percent-encoded to be represented as URI characters. When
hvalues encoded in this way are used to compose a message, the
hvalue must be transformed into MIME encoded words, except for an
hvalue of a "body" hname, which has to be encoded according to
[RFC2045]. Please note that for MIME encoded words and for
bodies in composed email messages, encodings other than UTF-8 MAY
be used as long as the characters are properly transcoded.
MIME encoded words and UTF-8-based percent-encoding SHOULD NOT both
be used sequentially in the same hvalue, and MUST NOT be combined.
Also note that it is legal to specify both "to" and an "hname" whose
value is "to". That is,
<mailto:addr1@an.example%2C%20addr2@an.example>
is equivalent to
<mailto:?to=addr1@an.example%2C%20addr2@an.example>
is equivalent to
<mailto:addr1@an.example?to=addr2@an.example>
However, the latter form is NOT RECOMMENDED. Implementations should
be careful not to produce two "To:" header fields in a message; the
"To:" header field may occur at most once in a message ([RFC2822],
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
Section 3.6). Also, creators of mailto: URIs should be careful to
not include other message header fields multiple times if these
header fields can only be used once in a message.
Creators of mailto URIs SHOULD avoid using the same "hname" multiple
times in the same URI to avoid interoperability problems. If the
same "hname" appears multiple times in an URI, behavior varies widely
for different user agents, and for each "hname". Examples include
only using the first or last "hname"/"hvalue" pair, combining each
"hvalue" by simple concatenation, or in a way appropriate for the
corresponding header field, or creating multiple header fields.
3. Semantics and Operations
A mailto URI designates an "internet resource", which is the mailbox
specified in the address. When additional header fields are
supplied, the resource designated is the same address, but with an
additional profile for accessing the resource. While there are
Internet resources that can only be accessed via electronic mail, the
mailto URI is not intended as a way of retrieving such objects
automatically.
In current practice, resolving URIs such as those in the "http"
scheme causes an immediate interaction between client software and a
host running an interactive server. The "mailto" URI has unusual
semantics because resolving such a URI does not cause an immediate
interaction. Instead, the client creates a message to the designated
address with the various header fields set as default. The user can
edit the message, send this message unedited, or choose not to send
the message. The operation of how any URI scheme is resolved is not
mandated by the URI specifications.
4. Unsafe Headers
The user agent interpreting a mailto URI SHOULD choose not to create
a message if any of the header fields are considered dangerous; it
may also choose to create a message with only a subset of the header
fields given in the URI. Only a limited set of header fields such as
Subject and Keywords, as well as Body, are believed to be both safe
and useful in the general case. In cases where the source of an URI
is well known, and/or specific header fields are limited to specific
well-known values, other header fields may be considered safe, too.
The creator of a mailto URI cannot expect the resolver of a URI to
understand more than the "subject" header field and "body". Clients
that resolve mailto URIs into mail messages MUST be able to correctly
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
create [RFC2822]-compliant mail messages using the "subject" header
field and "body".
5. Encoding
[STD66] requires that many characters in URIs be encoded. This
affects the mailto scheme for some common characters that might
appear in addresses, header fields, or message contents. One such
character is space (" ", ASCII hex 20). Note the examples below that
use "%20" for space in the message body. Also note that line breaks
in the body of a message MUST be encoded with "%0D%0A".
People creating mailto URIs must be careful to encode any reserved
characters that are used in the URIs so that properly-written URI
interpreters can read them. Also, client software that reads URIs
must be careful to decode strings before creating the mail message so
that the mail messages appear in a form that the recipient software
will understand. These strings should be decoded before showing the
message to the sending user.
Software creating mailto URIs likewise has to be careful to encode
any reserved characters that are used. One kind of software creating
mailto URIs are HTML forms. Current implementations encode a space
as '+', but this creates problems because such a '+' standing for a
space cannot be distinguished from a real '+' in a mailto URI. When
producing mailto: URIs, all spaces SHOULD be encoded as %20.
The mailto URI scheme is limited in that it does not provide for
substitution of variables. Thus, a message body that must include a
user's email address cannot be encoded using the mailto URI. This
limitation also prevents mailto URIs that are signed with public keys
and other such variable information.
6. Deployment of UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding
UTF-8-based percent-encoding should only be used in actual mailto
URIs once it is well deployed in software that interprets mailto URIs
(such as mail user agents).
7. Examples
7.1. Examples Conforming to RFC2368
A URI for an ordinary individual mailing address:
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
<mailto:chris@example.com>
A URI for a mail response system that requires the name of the file
in the subject:
<mailto:infobot@example.com?subject=current-issue>
A mail response system that requires a "send" request in the body:
<mailto:infobot@example.com?body=send%20current-issue>
A similar URI, with two lines with different "send" requests (in this
case, "send current-issue" and, on the next line, "send index"):
<mailto:infobot@
example.com?body=send%20current-issue%0D%0Asend%20index>
An interesting use of mailto URIs occurs when browsing archives of
messages. A link can be provided that allows to reply to a message
and conserve threading information. This is done by adding a In-
Reply-To header field containing the Message-ID of the message where
the link is added, for example:
<mailto:list@example.org?In-Reply-To=%3C3469A91.D10AF4C@
example.com%3E>
A request to subscribe to a mailing list:
<mailto:majordomo@example.com?body=subscribe%20bamboo-l>
A URI for a single user which includes a CC of another user:
<mailto:joe@example.com?cc=bob@example.com&body=hello>
Note the use of the "&" reserved character above. The following
example, using "?" twice, is incorrect:
<mailto:joe@example.com?cc=bob@example.com?body=hello> ; WRONG!
According to [RFC2822], the characters "?", "&", and even "%" may
occur in addr-specs. The fact that they are reserved characters is
not a problem: those characters may appear in mailto URIs, they just
may not appear in unencoded form. The standard URI encoding
mechanisms ("%" followed by a two-digit hex number) must be used in
these cases.
To indicate the address "gorby%kremvax@example.com" one would use:
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
<mailto:gorby%25kremvax@example.com>
To indicate the address "unlikely?address@example.com", and include
another header field, one would use:
<mailto:unlikely%3Faddress@example.com?blat=foop>
As described above, the "&" (ampersand) character is reserved in HTML
and must be replaced e.g. with "&". Thus, a URI with an internal
ampersand might look like:
Click <a href="mailto:joe@an.example?cc=bob@
an.example&body=hello">mailto:joe@an.example?cc=bob@
an.example&body=hello</a> to send a greeting message to Joe and
Bob.
When an email address itself includes an "&" (ampersand) character,
that character has to be percent-escaped. For example, the mailto:
URI to send mail to "Mike&family@example.org" is
<mailto:Mike%26family@example.org>.
7.2. Examples of Complicated Email Addresses
Following are a few examples of how to treat email addresses that
contain complicated escaping syntax.
Email address: "not@me"@example.org; corresponding mailto: URI:
<mailto:%22not%40me%22@example.org>.
Email address: "oh\\no"@example.org; corresponding mailto: URI:
<mailto:%22oh%5C%5Cno%22@example.org>.
Email address: "\\\"it's\ ugly\\\""@example.org; corresponding
mailto: URI:
<mailto:%22%5C%5C%5C%22it's%22%20ugly%5C%5C%5C%22%22@example.org>.
7.3. Examples Using UTF-8-Based Percent-Encoding
Sending a mail with the subject "coffee" in French, i.e. "cafe" where
the final e is an e-acute, using UTF-8 and percent-encoding:
<mailto:user@example.org?subject=caf%C3%A9>
The same subject, this time using an encoded-word (escaping the "="
and "?" characters used in the encoded-word syntax, because they are
reserved):
<mailto:user@
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
example.org?subject=%3D%3Futf-8%3FQ%3Fcaf%3DC3%3DA9%3F%3D>
The same subject, this time encoded as iso-8859-1:
<mailto:user@
example.org?subject=%3D%3Fiso-8859-1%3FQ%3Fcaf%3DE9%3F%3D>
Going back to straight UTF-8 and adding a body with the same value:
<mailto:user@example.org?subject=caf%C3%A9&body=caf%C3%A9>
This mailto URI may result in a message looking like this:
From: sender@example.net
To: user@example.org
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?caf=C3=A9?=
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
caf=C3=A9
The software sending the email is not restricted to UTF-8, but can
use other encodings. The following shows the same email using iso-
8859-1 two times:
From: sender@example.net
To: user@example.org
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
caf=E9
Different content transfer encodings (i.e. "8bit" or "base64" instead
of "quoted-printable") and different encodings in encoded words (i.e.
"B" instead of "Q") can also be used.
For more examples of encoding the word coffee in different languages,
see [RFC2324].
The following example uses the Japanese word "natto" (Unicode
characters U+7D0D U+8C46) as a domain name label, sending a mail to a
user at "natto".example.org:
<mailto:user@%E7%B4%8D%E8%B1%86.example.org?subject=Test&body=NATTO>
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
When constructing the email, the domain name label is converted to
punycode. The resulting message may look as follows:
From: sender@example.net
To: user@xn--99zt52a.example.org
Subject: Test
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NATTO
8. Security Considerations
The mailto scheme can be used to send a message from one user to
another, and thus can introduce many security concerns. Mail
messages can be logged at the originating site, the recipient site,
and intermediary sites along the delivery path. If the messages are
not encoded, they can also be read at any of those sites.
A mailto URI gives a template for a message that can be sent by mail
client software. The contents of that template may be opaque or
difficult to read by the user at the time of specifying the URI.
Thus, a mail client should never send a message based on a mailto URI
without first showing the full message that will be sent to the user
(including all header fields that were specified by the mailto URI),
fully decoded, and asking the user for approval to send the message
as electronic mail. The mail client should also make it clear that
the user is about to send an electronic mail message, since the user
may not be aware that this is the result of a mailto URI.
A mail client should never send anything without complete disclosure
to the user of what will be sent; it should disclose not only the
message destination, but also any header fields. Unrecognized header
fields, or header fields with values inconsistent with those the mail
client would normally send should be especially suspect. MIME header
fields (MIME- Version, Content-*) are most likely inappropriate,
except when added by the MUA to correctly encode the text(s) being
sent, as are those relating to routing (From, Apparently-To, etc.)
Note that some header fields are inherently unsafe to include in a
message generated from a URI. For example, header fields such as
"From:", and so on, should never be interpreted from a URI. In
general, the fewer header fields interpreted from the URI, the less
likely it is that a sending agent will create an unsafe message.
Examples of problems with sending unapproved mail include:
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
mail that breaks laws upon delivery, such as making illegal
threats;
mail that identifies the sender as someone interested in breaking
laws;
mail that identifies the sender to an unwanted third party;
mail that causes a financial charge to be incurred on the sender;
mail that causes an action on the recipient machine that causes
damage that might be attributed to the sender.
Programs that interpret mailto URIs should ensure that the SMTP
"From" address (the SMTP envelope return path given as an argument to
the SMTP MAIL FROM command) is set and correct, and that the
resulting email is a complete, workable message.
The security considerations of [STD66], [RFC3490], [RFC3491], and
[RFC3987] also apply. Implementers and users are recommended to
check them carefully.
9. IANA Considerations
This document changes the definition of the mailto: URI scheme; the
registry of URI schemes needs to be updated to refer to this document
rather than its predecessor, [RFC2368].
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
9.1. Registration of the Body Header Field
IANA is herewith requested to register the Body header field in the
Message Header Fields Registry ([RFC3864]) as follows:
Header field name:
Body
Applicable protocol:
None. This registration is made to assure that this header field
name is not used at all, in order to not create any problems
for mailto: URIs.
Status:
reserved
Author/Change controller:
IETF
Specification document(s):
Internet-Draft draft-duerst-mailto-bis-04.txt
(Note to RFC Editor: Replace this with
RFC YYYY (RFC number of this specification))
Related information:
none
10. Change Log
[RFC Editor, please remove this section before publication.]
10.1. Changes between draft 03 and draft 04
o Added mention of internationalization (not just IRI) to abstract.
o Updated reference from draft-ietf-eai-framework to RFC 4952,
simplified referring text.
o Used MUST for resolvers to understand Subject and Body for clear
interoperability.
o Noted that multiple identical hnames can cause interoperability
problems and SHOULD be avoided.
o Note the problem of '+' produced by HTML forms, made clear that
%20 SHOULD be used for encoding spaces.
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
o Removed warning against bcc; doesn't seem to be of any harm if
user checks explicitly.
o Some minor wording cleanup.
10.2. Changes between draft 02 and draft 03
o Adjusted description of mailto URI in abstract to match intro.
o Added registration template for body header field.
o Clarified requirements for produced email message.
o Clarified case (in)sensitivity of header field names and values.
o Introduced reference to EAI-framework, explained to what extent it
has been taken into account.
o Changed reference label from RFC3986 to STD66.
10.3. Changes between draft 01 and draft 02
o Fixed phone/fax for Martin.
o Changed examples to reduce cases with both a 'to' field and a 'to'
hname.
o Fixed syntax to not rely on non-terminals from RFC 2396. Changed
description of set of characters that needs to be escaped.
o Mollified warning about header fields other than Subject,
Keywords, and Body.
o Clarified prohibition of mixing different encodings (%-escaping
and Mime encoded words) for header fields.
o Improved some examples. Fixed some terminology.
10.4. Changes between draft 00 and draft 01
o Added clarification about permitted syntax and escaping on email
address LHS, and more complicated examples.
o Added text about more save headers in case origin or mailto URIs
is known.
o Fixed date of [STD66]
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
o Added a sentence referencing [RFC2119]
o Added Jamie back in as a co-author. Changed address/affiliation
for Martin.
10.5. Changes from RFC 2368
o For interoperability with IRIs ([RFC3987]), allowed percent-
encoding, fixed to UTF-8, in the domain name part of an email
address, in LHS part of an address (currently reserved because not
operationally usable), and in hvalue parts.
o Changed from 'URL' to 'URI'
o Updated references: ABNF to [RFC4234]; message syntax to
[RFC2822], URI Generic Syntax to [STD66]
o Expanded "#mailbox", because the "#" shortcut is no longer
available; needs checking
11. Acknowledgments
This document was derived from [RFC2368]; the acknowledgments from
this specification still apply. In addition, we thank Paul Hoffman
for his work on [RFC2368].
Valuable input on this document was received from (in no particular
order): Paul Hoffman, Charles Lindsey, Tim Kindberg, Frank Ellermann,
Etan Wexler, Michael Haardt, and Michael Anthony Puls II.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", November 1996.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2822] Resnik, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC3491] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
RFC 3491, March 2003.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", RFC 3864, BCP 90,
September 2004.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
[RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[STD63] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC2324] Masinter, L., "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol
(HTCPCP/1.0)", RFC 2324, April 1998.
[RFC2368] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto
URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.
[RFC4952] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", RFC 4952, July 2007.
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
Authors' Addresses
Martin Duerst (Note: Please write "Duerst" with u-umlaut wherever
possible, for example as "Dürst" in XML and HTML.)
Aoyama Gakuin University
5-10-1 Fuchinobe
Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8558
Japan
Phone: +81 42 759 6329
Fax: +81 42 759 6495
Email: mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
URI: http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp/D%C3%BCrst/
Larry Masinter
Adobe Systems Incorporated
345 Park Ave
San Jose, CA 95110
USA
Phone: +1-408-536-3024
Email: LMM@acm.org
URI: http://larry.masinter.net/
Jamie Zawinski
DNA Lounge
375 Eleventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
USA
Email: jwz@jwz.org
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft The 'mailto' URI Scheme January 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST 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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Duerst, et al. Expires July 6, 2008 [Page 18]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:22:24 |