One document matched: draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-00.txt
Network Working Group Jacob Palme
Internet Draft Stockholm University/KTH, Sweden
draft-ietf-drums-MHRegistry-01.txt August 1997
Category: Informational Expires February 1998
Mail and Netnews Header Registration Procedure
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. 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.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This
memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind, since
this document is mainly a compilation of information taken from
other RFCs.. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
Various IETF standards and e-mail and netnews software products
use various e-mail and netnews header fields. This document
specifies a procedure for the registration of e-mail and netnews
header field names, to reduce the risk that two different products
use the same header name in different ways (homonyms) or that
several different header names are used with identical meaning
(synonyms).
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Which Headers are Registered
3. Who can Register a Header Name
4. Registration Procedure
4.1 Present the Request for Registration to the
Community
4.2 Submit the Header name to the IANA for
Registration
5. Clarifications On Specific Issues
5.1 E-mail Requirements for a Limited Number of
Headers
5.2 Header Status
5.3 Requirements for a Published Specification
5.4 Identification of Security Considerations
5.5 Recommendations and Standards Status
6. Security Considerations
7. Acknowledgments
8. References
9. Author's address
10. Appendix: Proposed initial content of the IETF header
name registry
1. Introduction
Many different Internet standards, other RFCs and e-mail software
products define headers which may occur on Internet mail messages
and/or Usenet News articles. There is an obvious risk for
Honomyns: The same header name is used in different ways by
different software products.
Synonyms: Several different headers for exactly the same use.
The solution, to allow header names beginning with "X-" for
non-standard header names has several drawbacks. One is that it
does not preclude two different products using the same "X-"
header name with different semantic meaning. Another is that if an
"X-" header gets popular and much used, and is to become a
standard, there is a problem with removing the "X-" in front of an
already much used header.
Because of this, an IANA registry for e-mail and Usenet News
header field names is needed.
The following words are used in this memo with the meaning
specified below:
heading Formatted text at the top of a message, ended
by a blank line
header = heading One field in the heading, beginning with a
field header name, colon, and followed by the field
value(s)
2. Which Headers are Registered
The header name registry can contain headers from the following
sources:
- Internet standards
- RFCs which are not Internet standards
- Non-Internet standards
- Other commonly used headers
- Sometimes used headers whose use is discouraged. The use of a
header name may be discouraged because it is badly defined,
ambigous or used in different ways by different software. The
purpose of registering discouraged headers is to avoid their use
in their present or any other future semantic meaning.
The registry is intended to contain headers used in messaging
(e-mail, Usenet News, etc.) but not HTTP-only headers.
3. Who can Register a Header Name
Header names from Internet standards are registered by IETF
together with the standard specifying the header.
Headers in other RFCs are registered when the RFCs are published.
Anyone can propose the registry of additional headers, but such
headers should be approved by the IETF application area managers
before accepted in the registry. This approval should be given if
the header seems reasonable and not in conflict with current usage
or other headers in ways which might cause problem. It is not
necessary for approval that the AREA manager likes the header or
wants it to be progressed into an IETF standard. The procedure
described in this memo is followed by the IANA for review and
approval of new e-mail and netnews headers. This is not a formal
standards process, but rather an administrative procedure intended
to allow community comment and sanity checking without excessive
time delay.
4. Registration Procedure
4.1 Present the Request for Registration to the Community
Send a proposed header to the "mail-headers@segate.sunet.se"
mailing list. This mailing list has been established for the sole
purpose of reviewing proposed e-mail and netnews headers. You can
subscribe to the list by sending a message to
"listserv@segate.sunet.se" containing in the text a line with
"subscribe mail-headers " followed by our name (not your e-mail
address), and unsubscribe with a message "unsubscribe
mail-headers".
Archives of this list are available
by anonymous FTP from
ftp://segate.sunet.se/lists/mail-headers/
by HTTP from
http://segate.sunet.se/archives/mail-headers.html
by E-MAIL
send a message to
LISTSERV@SEGATE.SUNET.SE with the text "INDEX mail-headers"
to get a list of the archive files, and then a new message
"GET <file name>" to retrieve the archive files.
The FTP and E-MAIL archives are best if you want to retrieve
all messages during a month or more, while the HTTP archives
are better if you want to browse and find particular messages
to download.
The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and
feedback on the choice of header name, the unambiguity of the
references with respect to versions and external profiling
information, the choice of which OIDs to use, and a review of the
security considerations section. It should be noted that the
proposed header name does not need to make sense for every
possible application. If the header name is intended for a limited
or specific use, this should be noted in the submission.
4.2 Submit the Header name to the IANA for Registration
After at least two weeks, submit the proposed header to the IANA
for registration. The request and supporting documentation should
be sent to "iana@isi.edu". IANA will ask the area directors for
approval. If approved, IANA will register the header, assign an
OID under the IANA branch, and make the header registration
available to the community.
The header registrations will be posted in the anonymous FTP
directory "ftp.isi.edu:in-notes/mail-headers.html" or by HTTP from
"http://www.iana.net/mail-headers.html" and the header will be
listed in the periodically issued "Assigned Numbers" RFC [2]. The
header description may be published as an Informational RFC by
sending it to "rfc-editor@isi.edu" (please follow the instructions
to RFC authors [3]).
5. Clarifications On Specific Issues
5.1 E-mail Requirements for a Limited Number of Headers
Issue: In the asynchronous mail environment, where information on
the capabilities of the remote mail agent is not available to the
sender, maximum interoperability is attained by restricting the
number of headers used to those "common" headers expected to be
widely implemented. This was asserted as a reason to limit the
number of possible headers and resulted in a registration process
with a significant hurdle and delay for those registering headers.
5.2 Header Status
Any header in the registry should be marked with a status, which
has one of the values specified below:
IETF standard. Specified in an IETF standard.
IETF draft standard. Specified in an IETF draft standard.
IETF proposed Specified in an IETF proposed standard.
standard.
IETF experimental Specified in an IETF experimental
standard. standard.
X.400. Used to mark headers which are defined
in RFC 1327 for use in messages from or
to Internet mail/X.400 gateways, and
which have not been standardized for
general usage in the exchange of
messages between Internet mail-based
systems.
Usenet News only, De facto standard in Usenet News, may
not in e-mail. occur in messages gatewayed from Usenet
News to e-mail, no defined meaning in
e-mail.
Non-standard, only Used in Usenet News, may occur in
in Usenet News, not messages gatewayed from Usenet News to
in e-mail. e-mail, no defined meaning in e-mail.
Usenet news only, De facto standard in Usenet News, may
discouraged in occur in messages gatewayed from Usenet
e-mail. News to e-mail, but such practice is
discouraged.
Not standardized for Used to mark headers defined only for
use in e-mail. use in Usenet News. These headers have
no standard meaning when appearing in
e-mail, some of them may even be used in
different ways by different software.
When appearing in e-mail, they should be
handled with caution.
Other standard. Defined in standard developed by another
standards making body than IETF.
Non-standard. This header is not specified in any of
the RFCs which define Internet
protocols, including Internet Standards,
Draft Standards, Proposed Standards and
Experimental Standards. The header
appears here because it sometimes
appears in e-mail or Usenet News. Usage
of these headers is not in general
recommended. Some header proposed in
ongoing IETF standards development work,
but not yet accepted, are also marked in
this way.
discouraged This header, which is non-standard or
historical, is known to create problems
and should not be generated. Handling of
such headers in incoming mail should be
done with great caution.
controversial The meaning and usage of this header is
controversial, i.e. different
implementors have chosen to implement
the header in different ways. Because of
this, such headers should be handled
with caution and understanding of the
different possible interpretations.
5.3 Requirements for a Published Specification
Issue: If headers registered are specified in a separate document,
this document should be published as an RFC.
The following information should be provided when applying for
registry of a new e-mail or Usenet News header:
- Header name.
- Status, one of the statuses specified in section 5.2 above.
- If the header is specified in an RFC, the number of this RFC.
- If the header is specified in another standard than an RFC, a
reference to this standard.
- If the header is not specified in an RFC, a short textual
description should be enclosed, which describes the header,
its intended use and discusses security considerations.
- Security considerations.
5.4 Identification of Security Considerations
Issue: The registration process requires the identification of any
known security problems with the header name.
Comment: It is not required that the header be secure or that it
be free from risks, but that the known risks be identified.
Publication of a header name does not require an exhaustive
security review, and the security considerations. Additional
security considerations should be periodically published in an RFC
by IANA.
5.5 Recommendations and Standards Status
Issue: The registration of a header does not imply endorsement,
approval, or recommendation by IANA or IETF or even certification
that the specification is adequate.
6. Security Considerations
This memo does not address specific security issues but outlines a
security review process for headers
7. Acknowledgments
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Ned Freed, Olle Järnefors, Keith Moore,
Nick Smith and several other people have helped in developing this
document. I alone take responsibility for any errors which may
still be in the list.
8. References
Ref. Author, title IETF status
(July 1996)
---- ------------------------------------------ -------------
[1] J. Postel: "Simple Mail Transfer Standard,
Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982. Recommended
[2] D. Crocker: "Standard for the format of Standard,
ARPA Internet text messages." STD 11, RFC Recommended
822, August 1982.
[3] M.R. Horton, R. Adams: "Standard for Not an
interchange of USENET messages", RFC 1036, offi-cial IETF
December 1987. standard, but
in reality a
de-facto
standard for
Usenet News
[4] M. Sirbu: "A Content-Type header for Standard,
internet messages", RFC 1049, March 1988. Recommended,
but can in the
future be
expected to be
replaced by
MIME
[5] R. Braden (editor): "Requirements for Standard,
Internet Hosts -- Application and Required
Support", STD-3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[6] D. Robinson, R. Ullman: "Encoding Header Non-standard
for Internet Messages", RFC 1154, April
1990.
[7] S. Hardcastle-Kille: "Mapping between Proposed
X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822", RFC standard,
1327 May 1992. elective
[8] H. Alvestrand & J. Romaguera: "Rules for Proposed
Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to standard,
X.400/84 When MIME Content-Types are elective
Present in the Messages", RFC 1496, August
1993.
[9] A. Costanzo: "Encoding Header for Internet Non-standard
Messages", RFC 1154, April 1990.
[10] A. Costanzo, D. Robinson: "Encoding Header Experimental
for Internet Messages", RFC 1505, August
1993.
[11] N. Borenstein & N. Freed: "MIME Draft Standard,
(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) elective
Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and
Describing the Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 1521, Sept 1993.
[12] H. Alvestrand: "Tags for the Proposed
Identification of Languages", RFC 1766, standard,
February 1995. elective
[13] J. Palme: "Electronic Mail", Artech House Non-standard
publishers, London-Boston January 1995.
[14] R. Troost, S. Dorner: "Communicating Experimental
Presentation Information in Internet
Messages: The Content-Disposition Header",
RFC 1806, June 1995.
[15] B. Kantor, P. Lapsley, "Network News Proposed
Transfer Protocol: "A Proposed Standard standard
for the Stream-Based Transmission of
News", RFC 977, January 1986.
[16] 1848 PS S. Crocker, N. Freed, J. Proposed
Galvin, S. Murphy, "MIME Object Security standard
Services", RFC 1848, March 1995.
[17] J. Myers, M. Rose: The Content-MD5 Header, Draft standard
RFC 1864, October 1995.
[18] M. Horton, UUCP mail interchange format Not an
standard, RFC 976, Januari 1986. official IETF
standard, but
in reality a
de-facto
standard for
Usenet News
[19] T. Berners-Lee, R. Headering, H. Frystyk: IETF draft
Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0,
draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-04.txt.
[20] G. Vaudreuil: Voice Profile for Internet Experimental
Mail, RFC 1911, February 1996.
[21] H. Spencer: News Article Format and Not even an
Transmission, June 1994, RFC, but still
FTP://zoo.toronto.edu/pub/news.ps.Z widely used and
FTP://zoo.toronto.edu/pub/news.txt.Z partly almost a
de-facto
This document is often referenced under standard for
the name "son-of-RFC1036". Usenet News
[22] J. Palme: Common Internet Message Headers. Informational
draft-ietf-mailext-mail-attributes-07.txt.
January 1997.
[23] PICS Label Distribution Label Syntax and Other standard
Communication Protocols, World Wide Web
Consortium, October 1996.
[24] Eudora Pro Macintosh User Manual, Qualcomm Non-standard
Inc., 1988-1995.
9. Author's address
Jacob Palme Phone: +46-8-16 16 67
Stockholm University/KTH Fax: +46-8-783 08 29
Electrum 230 E-mail: jpalme@dsv.su.se
S-164 40 Kista, Sweden
10. Appendix: Example of the first few entries in the registry
Note: This example is formatted in a simple subset of HTML which
almost all HTML browsers can handle. IANA may choose to use an
HTML editor to prepare this list, and this editor may cause some
differences from the exact layout shown below.
The example below can be accessed via URL:
http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/ehead-registry-example.html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>IANA Registry of e-mail headers</TITLE>
<META name="description"
content="This is a table of e-mail and Usenet News headers
registered by IANA.">
<META name="keywords"
content="e-mail email netnews Usenet News header heading
standard format">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<H1> <IMG SRC="http://www.isi.edu/~touch/images/iu8.gif" align="middle"
alt="ISI Logo">
<A HREF="http://www.inana.org/iana/">
IANA</A> Registry of e-mail headers
<A HREF="http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/validate/"><IMG
SRC="http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/validate/valid_html3.2.gif"
ALT="HTML 3.2 Checked!" align="middle"></A></H1>
<P>
<I>Last update: 15 August 1997.</I>
<P><TABLE BORDER=1>
<TR>
<TH align="left" valign="top">
Description
</TH><TH align="left" valign="top">
Name
</TH><TH align="left" valign="top">
Reference, status
</TH></TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left" valign="top">
Special Usenet News actions and a normal article at the
same time.
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
Also-Control:
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
son-of-RFC1036 [21], non-standard, only in Usenet News,
not in e-mail
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left" valign="top">
Controls whether this message may be forwarded to
alternate recipients such as a postmaster if delivery is
not possible to the intended recipient. Default: Allowed.
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
Alternate-Recipient:
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
RFC 1327, not for general usage.
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left" valign="top">
Inserted by Sendmail when there is no "To:" recipient in
the original message, listing recipients derived from the
envelope into the message heading. This behavior is not
quite proper, MTAs should not modify headings (except
inserting Received lines), and it can in some cases cause
Bcc recipients to be wrongly divulged to non-Bcc
recipients.
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
Apparently-To:
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
Non-standard, discouraged, mentioned in RFC 1211.
</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left" valign="top">
Name of the moderator of the newsgroup to which this
article is sent; necessary on an article sent to a
moderated newsgroup to allow its distribution to the
newsgroup members. Also used on certain control
messages, which are only performed if they are marked
as Approved.
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
Approved:
</TD><TD align="left" valign="top">
RFC 1036: 2.2.11, not standardized for use in e-mail.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:18:56 |