Getting back to this draft.
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
I had a few minutes. See attached. Comments?
o IANA is directed to create the registry Mail Enhanced Status
Codes. In the terms of [5], values of Enhanced Status Codes
must be registered with IANA under the IETF Consensus method.
Published RFC is IMO simpler, they can link to a RFC in the registry.
That *IS* the IETF Consensus method; see the definition in RFC 2434.
If 2434bis gets published first, this statement should be revised
accordingly.
===
I expanded out the lists of what values are being pulled out of where.
There is an issue of what to do with the values X.7.8 through X.7.13.
These were all defined in a draft that has since expired
(draft-newman-auth-resp-00.txt), but have been used in other documents
such as draft-siemborski-rfc2554bis.
As a strawman, I pulled in versions of the definitions from that draft.
I also introduced X.7.14 and X.7.15 to replace the competing uses of
X.7.8. Is this the best way to handle this conflict?
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Network Working Group T. Hansen
Internet-Draft AT&T Laboratories
Updates: 1893,4468 April 9, 2007
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 11, 2007
A Registry for Mail Enhanced Status Codes
draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-01
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 11, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document establishes an IANA registry for SMTP Enhanced Status
Codes.
Hansen Expires October 11, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry April 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hansen Expires October 11, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry April 2007
1. Introduction
Enhanced Status Codes for SMTP were first defined in [RFC1893], which
was replaced by [RFC3463]. Since that time, various RFCs have been
published and internet drafts proposed that define further status
codes. However, no IANA registry was defined for the status codes
and conflicts in definitions have begun to appear. This RFC defines
such an IANA registry and was written to help prevent further
conflicts from appearing in the future.
This document is being discussed on the SMTP mailing list,
ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org [1].
2. IANA Considerations
o IANA is directed to create the registry Mail Enhanced Status
Codes. In the terms of [RFC2434], values of Enhanced Status Codes
must be registered with IANA under the IETF Consensus method.
(Specifically, new assignments are made via RFCs approved by the
IESG.)
o The Mail Enhanced Status Codes registry will have three tables:
* class sub-code,
* subject sub-code, and
* enumerated status codes, which include both a subject sub-code
and a detail sub-code.
o Each entry in the tables will include: the sub-code or enumerated
status code, a definition title for the code, and a description of
the code's use, similar to the entries shown in [RFC3463]. An
example of an entry in the enumerated status code table would be:
X.0.0 Other undefined Status Other undefined status is the only
undefined error code. It should be used for all errors for
which only the class of the error is known.
o The initial values for the class and subject sub-code tables is to
be populated from section 2 of [RFC3463]. Specifically, these are
the values for 2.XXX.XXX, 4.XXX.XXX and 5.XXX.XXX for the class
sub-code table, and the values X.0.XXX, X.1.XXX, X.2.XXX, X.3.XXX,
X.4.XXX, X.5.XXX, X.6.XXX and X.7.XXX for the subject sub-code
table.
o The initial values for the enumerated status code table is to be
populated from sections 3.1 through 3.8 of [RFC3463], (X.0.0,
X.1.0 through X.1.8, X.2.0 through X.2.4, X.3.0 through X.3.5,
X.4.0 through X.4.7, X.5.0 through X.5.5, X.6.0 through X.6.5, and
X.7.0 through X.7.7) section 3.3.4 of [RFC3886] (X.1.9), and the
definition of X.6.6 found in section 5 of [RFC4468].
o The following definitions are to be registered in the enumerated
status code table.
Hansen Expires October 11, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry April 2007
X.5.6 Authentication Exchange line is too long This enhanced
status code SHOULD be returned when the server fails the AUTH
command due to the client sending a response which is longer
than the maximum buffer size available for the currently
selected SASL mechanism.
X.7.8 Trust relationship required or Authentication credentials
invalid Because of conflicting definitions in different
documents, this value should no longer be used.
X.7.9 Authentication mechanism is too weak This response to the
AUTH command indicates that the selected authentication
mechanism is weaker than server policy permits for that user.
The client SHOULD retry with a new authentication mechanism.
X.7.10 Encryption Needed This indicates that external strong
privacy layer is needed in order to use the requested
authentication mechanism. This is primarily intended for use
with clear text authentication mechanisms. A client which
receives this may activate a security layer such as TLS prior
to authenticating, or attempt to use a stronger mechanism.
X.7.11 Encryption required for requested authentication mechanism
This indicates the user's passphrase or passphrase has expired
and needs to be changed. Many sites have a policy which
forbids a passphrase or passphrase from being used too long.
These sites will set a time period after which passphrases must
be changed. Some sites also pre-expire passphrases set by a
system administrator, such that a user must change their
passphrase prior to using their account. A client which
receives this error code can treat it as a user request to
change her passphrase.
X.7.12 A password transition is needed This response to the AUTH
command indicates that the user needs to transition to the
selected authentication mechanism. This is typically done by
authenticating once using the [PLAIN] authentication mechanism.
The selected mechanism SHOULD then work for authentications in
subsequent sessions.
X.7.13 User Account Disabled Sometimes a system administrator
will have to disable a user's account (e.g., due to lack of
payment, abuse, evidence of a break-in attempt, etc). This
error code occurs after a successful authentication to a
disabled account. This informs the client that the failure is
permanent until the user contacts their system administrator to
get the account re- enabled. It differs from a generic
authentication failure where the client's best option is to
present the passphrase entry dialog in case the user simply
mistyped their passphrase.
Hansen Expires October 11, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry April 2007
X.7.14 Trust relationship required The submission server requires
a configured trust relationship with a third-party server in
order to access the message content. This value replaces the
prior use of X.7.8 for this error condition.
X.7.15 Authentication credentials invalid Authentication failed
due to invalid or insufficient authentication credentials.
This value replaces the prioruse of X.7.8 for this error
condition.
3. Security Considerations
As stated in [RFC1893], use of enhanced status codes may disclose
additional information about how an internal mail system is
implemented beyond that available through the SMTP status codes.
4. Acknowledgements
Thanks go to the members of the ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org [1] mailing
list.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC3463] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
RFC 3463, January 2003.
[RFC3886] Allman, E., "An Extensible Message Format for Message
Tracking Responses", RFC 3886, September 2004.
[RFC4468] Newman, C., "Message Submission BURL Extension", RFC 4468,
May 2006.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC1893] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
RFC 1893, January 1996.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
URIs
[1] <mailto:ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Hansen Expires October 11, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry April 2007
Author's Address
Tony Hansen
AT&T Laboratories
200 Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Email: tony+mailesc(_at_)maillennium(_dot_)att(_dot_)com
Hansen Expires October 11, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Mail Enhanced Status Code Registry 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Hansen Expires October 11, 2007 [Page 7]