One document matched: draft-klensin-smtp-code-registry-00.txt

Network Working Group                                         J. Klensin
Internet-Draft                                             April 6, 2007
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 8, 2007


            An IANA Registry for Extended SMTP Status Codes
                draft-klensin-smtp-code-registry-00.txt

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 October 8, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   The specification for enhanced mail system status codes, RFC 3463,
   establishes a new code model and lists a collection of codes.  While
   it anticipated that more codes would be added over time, it did not
   provide an explicit mechanism for registering and tracking those
   codes.  This document specifies an IANA registry for enhanced mail
   system status codes, initializing that registry with the codes so far
   established in published standards-track documents.




Klensin                  Expires October 8, 2007                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              SMTP Status Codes                 April 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Note in Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  A New Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Registry Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Information Required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.3.  Review Process for New Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.4.  Registration Updates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Initial Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 7

































Klensin                  Expires October 8, 2007                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              SMTP Status Codes                 April 2007


1.  Introduction

   The specification for enhanced mail system status codes, RFC 3463
   [1], establishes a new code model and lists a collection of codes.
   While it anticipated that more codes would be added over time (see
   its Section 2), it did not provide an explicit mechanism for
   registering and tracking those codes.  This document specifies an
   IANA registry for enhanced mail system status codes, initializing
   that registry with the codes so far established in published
   standards-track documents.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2].

1.1.  Note in Draft

   RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication.

   This document is based on the recommendations of the working draft
   about IANA considerations [6] rather than the published, but somewhat
   dated, version [7].  Should it complete Last Call before there is
   action on the I-D, references to the published form will be
   retrofitted.


2.  A New Registry

2.1.  Registry Name

   This registry will be known as "SMTP Enhanced Status Codes"

2.2.  Information Required

   A registration will consider of four items:

   1.  A numeric code, consisting of three components, as specified in
       RFC 3463.

   2.  Text expected to be associated with the code, as specified in RFC
       3463.

   3.  A short description of the code, including the basic reply code
       of RFC 2821 [3] with which it is associated.

   4.  A reference to the document in which the code is defined.  This
       reference should note whether the relevant specification is
       standards-track or not.



Klensin                  Expires October 8, 2007                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              SMTP Status Codes                 April 2007


   5.  The identity of the submitter or registrant ("IESG" in the case
       of IETF-produced documents).

2.3.  Review Process for New Values

   Entries in this registry are expected to follow the "Specification
   Required", model although, in practice, most entries are expected to
   derive from standards-track documents.  However, any review process
   for non-standards-track documents SHOULD accept evidence of
   significant deployment as a a persuasive argument that the
   registration should be permitted: the principal purpose of this
   registry is ultimately to avoid confusion and conflicts among
   different definitions or uses for the same code.

2.4.  Registration Updates

   Standards-track registrations may be updated if the relevant
   standards are updated, and as a consequence of that action.  Other
   registration entries may be updated with regard to short descriptions
   and references at the request of the party requesting the original
   registration but not with regard to the code or associated text.  In
   exceptional cases, any registered entity may be updated at the
   direction of the IESG.


3.  Initial Values

   As discussed above, a registry should be created for extended SMTP
   reply codes.  That registry should initially be populated with the
   codes specified in RFC 3463 [1], RFC 3886 [4], and updated as
   specified above.  Documents presently in IESG evaluation or the RFC
   editor queue which update RFC 3463 can also provide initial values
   for this registry or should be used as a basis for updating it when
   they are approved and published.


4.  Acknowledgements

   While the need for this registry should have become clear shortly
   after RFC 3463 was approved, the growth of the code table through
   additional documents and work done as part of email
   internationalization and RFC 2821 updating efforts made the
   requirement much more clear.  The comments of the participants in
   those efforts are gratefully acknowledged.  Chris Newman provided
   useful comments and some text for a preliminary version of the
   document.





Klensin                  Expires October 8, 2007                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              SMTP Status Codes                 April 2007


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies creation of a new registry and the initial
   values with which it is to be populated.


6.  Security Considerations

   Many proposed additions to the response code list are security
   related.  Having these registered in one place to prevent collisions
   will improve their value.  Security error responses can leak
   information to active attackers (e.g., the distinction between "user
   not found" and "bad password" during authentication).  Documents
   defining security error codes should make it clear when this is the
   case so SMTP server software subject to such threats can provide
   appropriate controls to restrict exposure.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [3]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
        April 2001.

   [4]  Allman, E., "An Extensible Message Format for Message Tracking
        Responses", RFC 3886, September 2004.

   [5]  Newman, C., "Message Submission BURL Extension", RFC 4468,
        May 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [6]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
        Considerations Section in RFCs",
        draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-06 (work in
        progress), March 2007.

   [7]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
        Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.





Klensin                  Expires October 8, 2007                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              SMTP Status Codes                 April 2007


Author's Address

   John C Klensin
   1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322
   Cambridge, MA  02140
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 245 1457
   Email: john+ietf@jck.com










































Klensin                  Expires October 8, 2007                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              SMTP Status Codes                 April 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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).





Klensin                  Expires October 8, 2007                [Page 7]