idnits 2.17.1 draft-newman-esmtpsa-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (August 18, 2003) is 7109 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 128, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2821 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2554 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 4954) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2033 (ref. '4') -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1869 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 2821) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 821 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 2821) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Newman 3 Internet-Draft Sun Microsystems 4 Expires: February 16, 2004 August 18, 2003 6 ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration 7 draft-newman-esmtpsa-01.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 16 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 18 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 19 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 20 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 21 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 23 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 24 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 26 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 29 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2004. 31 Copyright Notice 33 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 35 Abstract 37 This registers seven new mail transmission types (ESMTPA, ESMTPS, 38 ESMTPSA, LMTP, LMTPA, LMTPS, LMTPSA) for use in the "with" clause of 39 a Received header in an Internet message. 41 1. IANA Considerations 43 As directed by SMTP [2], IANA maintains a registry [7] of "WITH 44 protocol types" for use in the "with" clause of the Received header 45 in an Internet message. This registry presently includes SMTP [6], 46 and ESMTP [2]. This specification updates the registry as follows: 48 o The new keyword "ESMTPA" indicates the use of ESMTP when the SMTP 49 AUTH [3] extension is also used and authentication is successfully 50 achieved. 52 o The new keyword "ESMTPS" indicates the use of ESMTP when STARTTLS 53 [1] is also successfully negotiated to provide a strong transport 54 encryption layer. 56 o The new keyword "ESMTPSA" indicates the use of ESMTP when both 57 STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH are successfully negotiated (the 58 combination of ESMTPS and ESMTPA). 60 o The new keyword "LMTP" indicates the use of LMTP [4]. 62 o The new keyword "LMTPA" indicates the use of LMTP when the SMTP 63 AUTH extension is also used and authentication is successfully 64 achieved. 66 o The new keyword "LMTPS" indicates the use of LMTP when STARTTLS is 67 also successfully negotiated to provide a strong transport 68 encryption layer. 70 o The new keyword "LMTPSA" indicates the use of LMTP when both 71 STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH are successfully negotiated (the 72 combination of LSMTPS and LSMTPA). 74 o The references for the ESMTP and SMTP entries in the registry 75 should be updated to the latest specification [2] since both RFC 76 821 and RFC 1869 are obsoleted by RFC 2821. 78 2. Implementation Experience 80 The ESMTPA, ESMTPS and ESMTPSA keywords have been implemented in 81 deployed email server software for several years and no problems have 82 been reported with their use. 84 3. Security Considerations 86 Use of these additional keywords provides trace information to 87 indicate when various high-level security framing protocols are used 88 for hop-to-hop transport of email without exposing details of the 89 specifics of the security mechanism. This trace information provides 90 an informal way to track the deployment of these mechanisms on the 91 Internet and can assist after-the-fact diagnosis of email abuse. 93 These keywords are not normally protected in transport which means 94 they can be modified by an active attacker. They also do not 95 indicate the specifics of the mechanism used, and therefore do not 96 provide any real-world security assurance. As they are both cryptic 97 and hidden in trace headers used primarily to diagnose email 98 problems, it is not expected they will mislead end users with a false 99 sense of security. Information with a higher degree of reliability 100 can be obtained by correlating the Received headers with the logs of 101 the various Mail Transfer Agents through which the message passed. 103 The trace information provided by these keywords and other parts of 104 the Received header provide a significant benefit when doing 105 after-the-fact diagnosis of email abuse or problems. Unfortunately, 106 some people in a misguided attempt to hide information about their 107 internal servers will strip Received headers of useful information 108 and reduce their ability to correct security abuses after they 109 happen. The result of such misguided efforts is usually a reduction 110 of the overall security of the systems. 112 Normative References 114 [1] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over 115 Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002. 117 [2] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 118 2001. 120 [3] Myers, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication", RFC 121 2554, March 1999. 123 [4] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033, October 124 1996. 126 Informative References 128 [5] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D. Crocker, 129 "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869, November 1995. 131 [6] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, 132 August 1982. 134 URIs 136 [7] 138 Author's Address 140 Chris Newman 141 Sun Microsystems 142 1050 Lakes Drive 143 West Covina, CA 91790 144 US 146 EMail: chris.newman@sun.com 148 Intellectual Property Statement 150 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 151 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 152 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 153 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 154 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 155 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 156 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 157 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 158 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 159 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 160 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 161 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 162 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 164 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 165 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 166 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 167 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 168 Director. 170 Full Copyright Statement 172 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 174 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 175 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 176 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 177 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 178 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 179 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 180 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 181 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 182 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 183 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 184 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 185 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 186 English. 188 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 189 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 191 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 192 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 193 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 194 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 195 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 196 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 198 Acknowledgment 200 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 201 Internet Society.