WDIFF

draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13.txt --> rfc5336.txt

Network Working Group J. Yao, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 5336 W. Mao, Ed.
Updates: RFC4952, 2821 and 2822 2821, 2822, 4952 CNNIC
(if approved) July 8, 2008
Intended status:
Category: Experimental
Expires: January 9, 2009 September 2008

SMTP extension Extension for internationalized email address
draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13.txt Internationalized Email Addresses

Status of this 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

This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas,
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid suggestions for a maximum improvement are requested.
Distribution of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It this memo 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 January 9, 2009. unlimited.

Abstract

This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery
of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header
information. Communication with systems that do not implement this
specification is specified in another document. This document
updates some syntaxes and rules defined in RFC 2821 and RFC 2822, and
has some material updating RFC 4952.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 Experimental [Page 1]

Internet-Draft

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension July September 2008

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Role of this specification This Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Mail Transport-level Transport-Level Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Framework for the Internationalization Extension . . . . . 4
3.2. The UTF8SMTP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Extended Mailbox Address Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. The ALT-ADDRESS Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
3.5. ALT-ADDRESS Parameter Usage and Response Codes . . . . . . 10
3.6. Body Parts and SMTP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11
3.7. Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications . . . . . . . 11
3.7.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
3.7.2. Mail eXchangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7.3. Trace Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7.4. UTF-8 Strings in Replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 01 . . . . . . . . . . References . . 17
7.3. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.5. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 04 . . . . .
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . 18
7.6. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.7. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 06 .
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.8. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 07 . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Material Updating RFC 4952 . . . . . 18
7.9. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 08 . . . . . . . . 20
A.1. Conventional Message and Internationalized Message . . . . 19
7.10. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 09 20
A.2. LMTP . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.11. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.12. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 11 . . . 20
A.3. SMTP Service Extension for DSNs . . . . . . . . . 19
7.13. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 12 . . . . 20
A.4. Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . 19
7.14. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Material Updating RFC 4952 . . . . . . . . . 20
A.5. Applicability of SMTP Extension to Additional Uses . . . . 21
A.1. Conventional Message and Internationalized Message . . . . 22
A.2. LMTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.3. SMTP Service Extension for DSNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.4. Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.5. Applicability of SMTP Extension to Additional Uses . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 Experimental [Page 2]

Internet-Draft

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension July September 2008

1. Introduction

An internationalized email address includes two parts, the local part
and the domain part. The ways email addresses are used by protocols
are different from the ways domain names are used. The most critical
difference is that emails are delivered through a chain of clients
and servers servers, while domain names are resolved by name servers looking
up those names in their own tables. In addition to this, the simple
mail transfer protocol Simple
Mail Transfer Protocol [RFC2821] provides a negotiation mechanism
about service extension with which clients can discover server
capabilities and make decisions for further processing. An extended
overview of the extension model for internationalized addresses and
headers appears in [RFC4952], referred to as "the framework document"
or just as "Framework" elsewhere in this specification. This
document specifies an SMTP extension to permit internationalized
email addresses in envelopes, and UNICODE characters (encoded in
UTF-8) [RFC3629] in headers.

1.1. Role of this specification This Specification

The framework document specifies the requirements for, and describes
components of, full internationalization of electronic mail. A
thorough understanding of the information in that document and in the
base Internet email specifications [RFC2821] [RFC2822] is necessary
to understand and implement this specification.

This document specifies an element of the email internationalization
work, specifically the definition of an SMTP extension [RFC2821] for
internationalized email address transport delivery.

1.2. Terminology

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 [RFC2119].

The terms "conventional message" and "internationalized message" are
defined in an appendix to this specification. The terms "UTF-8
string" or "UTF-8 character" are used informally to refer to Unicode
characters encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629]. All other specialized terms
used in this specification are defined in the framework document or
in the base Internet email specifications [RFC2821] [RFC2822]. In
particular, the terms "ASCII address", "internationalized email
address", "non-ASCII address", "i18mail address", "UTF8SMTP",
"message"
"message", and "mailing list" are used in this document according to
the definitions in the framework one.

This specification defines only those Augmented BNF for Syntax document.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 Experimental [Page 3]

Internet-Draft

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension July September 2008

Specifications

This specification defines only those Augmented BNF (ABNF) [RFC5234]
syntax rules that are different from those of the base email
specifications [RFC2821][RFC2822] and, where the earlier rules are
upgraded or extended, gives them new names. When the new rule is a
small modification to the older one, it is typically given a name
starting with "u". Rules that are undefined here may be found in the
base email specifications under the same names.

[[anchor3: NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please remove the following text
before publication.]]
This specification is being discussed on the EAI mailing list. See
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima for information about
subscribing. The list's archive is at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/index.html.

2. Overview of Operation

This specification describes an optional extension to the email
transport mechanism that permits non-ASCII [ASCII] characters in both
the envelope and header fields of messages, which are encoded with
UTF-8 [RFC3629] characters. The extension is identified with the
token "UTF8SMTP". In order to provide information that may be needed
in downgrading, an optional alternate ASCII address may be needed if
an SMTP client attempts to transfer an internationalized message and
encounters a server that does not support this extension.

The EAI-utf8header EAI UTF-8 header specification [EAI-utf8header] [RFC5335] provides the details of
how and where non-ASCII characters are permitted in the header fields
of messages. The context for this specification is described in the
framework document.

3. Mail Transport-level Transport-Level Protocol

3.1. Framework for the Internationalization Extension

The following service extension is defined:

1. The name of the SMTP service extension is "Email Address
Internationalization".

2. The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
"UTF8SMTP".

3. No parameter values are defined for this EHLO keyword value. In
order to permit future (although unanticipated) extensions, the
EHLO response MUST NOT contain any parameters for that keyword.
Clients MUST ignore any parameters, parameters; that is, clients MUST behave
as if the parameters do not appear. If a server includes

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008
UTF8SMTP in its EHLO response, it MUST be fully compliant with
this version of this specification.

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 4]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

4. One optional parameter, ALT-ADDRESS, is added to the MAIL and
RCPT commands of SMTP. ALT-ADDRESS specifies an all-ASCII
address which can be used as a substitute for the corresponding
primary (i18mail) address when downgrading. More discussion of
the use of this parameter appears in [RFC4952] and
[EAI-downgrading]. [Downgrade].

5. One optional parameter "UTF8REPLY" is added to the VRFY and EXPN
commands. The parameter UTF8REPLY has no value. The parameter
indicates that the SMTP client can accept Unicode characters in
UTF-8 encoding in replies from the VRFY and EXPN commands.

6. No additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.

7. Servers offering this extension MUST provide support for, and
announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].

8. The reverse-path and forward-path of the SMTP MAIL and RCPT
commands are extended to allow Unicode characters encoded in
UTF-8 in mailbox names (addresses).

9. The mail message body is extended as specified in
[EAI-utf8header]. [RFC5335].

10. The maximum length of MAIL and RCPT command lines is increased
by 460 characters by the possible addition of the ALT-ADDRESS
keyword and value.

11. The UTF8SMTP extension is valid on the submission port
[RFC4409].

3.2. The UTF8SMTP Extension

An SMTP Server server that announces this extension MUST be prepared to
accept a UTF-8 string [RFC3629] in any position in which RFC 2821
specifies that a mailbox can appear. That string MUST be parsed only
as specified in RFC 2821, i.e., by separating the mailbox into source
route, local part part, and domain part, using only the characters colon
(U+003A), comma (U+002C), and at-sign (U+0040) as specified there.
Once isolated by this parsing process, the local part MUST be treated
as opaque unless the SMTP Server server is the final delivery MTA. Mail Transfer
Agent (MTA). Any domain names that are to be looked up in the DNS
MUST first be processed into the form specified in IDNA
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)" [RFC3490] by
means of the ToASCII() operation unless they are already in that
form. Any domain names that are to be compared to local strings
SHOULD be checked for validity and then MUST be compared as specified
in section Section 3.4 of IDNA.

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 5]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

An SMTP Client client that receives the UTF8SMTP extension keyword in
response to the "EHLO" EHLO command MAY transmit mailbox names within SMTP
commands as internationalized strings in UTF-8 form. It MAY send a
UTF-8 header [EAI-utf8header] [RFC5335] (which may also include mailbox names in
UTF-8). It MAY transmit the domain parts of mailbox names within

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008
SMTP commands or the message header in as either the form of ACE (ASCII Compatible
Encoding) labels as (as specified in IDNA [RFC3490] [RFC3490]) or as UTF-8 strings.
All labels in domain parts of mailbox names which are IDNs (either
UTF-8 or ACE strings) MUST be valid. If the original client submits
a message to a Message Submission Server ("MSA") [RFC4409], it is the
responsibility of the MSA that all domain labels are valid; otherwise
otherwise, it is the original client's responsibility. The presence
of the UTF8SMTP extension does not change the requirement of RFC 2821
that servers relaying mail MUST NOT attempt to parse, evaluate, or
transform the local part in any way.

If the UTF8SMTP SMTP extension is not offered by the Server, the SMTP
client MUST NOT transmit an internationalized address and MUST NOT
transmit a mail message containing internationalized mail headers as
described in [RFC5335] at any level within its MIME structure. (For
this paragraph, the internationalized domain name in the form of ACE
labels as specified in IDNA [RFC3490] is not considered as
"internationalized".) and MUST NOT transmit a mail message containing
internationalized mail headers as described in [EAI-utf8header] at
any level within its MIME structure. Instead, if an SMTP client (SMTP sender)
attempts to transfer an internationalized message and encounters a
server that does not support the extension, it MUST make one of the
following four choices:

1. If and only if the SMTP client (sender) is a Message Submission
Server ("MSA") [RFC4409], it MAY, consistent with the general
provisions for changes by such servers, rewrite the envelope,
headers, or message material to make them entirely ASCII and
consistent with the provisions of RFC 2821 [RFC2821] and RFC 2822
[RFC2822].

2. Either It may either reject the message during the SMTP transaction or
accept the message and then generate and transmit a notification
of non-
deliverability. non-deliverability. Such notification MUST be done as
specified in RFC 2821 [RFC2821], RFC 3464 [RFC3464], and the EAI DSN
delivery status notification (DSN) specification [EAI-dsn]. [RFC5337].

3. Find It may find an alternate route to the destination that permits
UTF8SMTP. That route may be discovered by trying alternate MX Mail
eXchanger (MX) hosts (using preference rules as specified in RFC
2821) or using other means available to the SMTP-sender.

4. If and only if ASCII addresses are available for all addresses
that appear in the return path and the specific forward paths
being attempted, it may downgrade the message to an all-ASCII

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 6]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

form as specified in [EAI-downgrading]. [Downgrade]. An ASCII address is considered
to be "available" for a particular address if the original
address in the envelope is in ASCII or if an ALT-ADDRESS
parameter is specified for a UTF8SMTP address.

The difference between "choice 1" choice 1 and "choice 4" choice 4 is that "choice 1" choice 1 is
constrained by Message Submission [RFC4409], while "choice 4" choice 4 is
constrained by [EAI-downgrading].

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008 [Downgrade].

3.3. Extended Mailbox Address Syntax

RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2, defines the syntax of a mailbox entirely in
terms of ASCII characters, using the production for a mailbox and
those productions on which it depends.

The key changes made by this specification are, informally, to

o Change the definition of "sub-domain" to permit either the
definition above or a UTF-8 string representing a DNS label that
is conformant with IDNA [RFC3490].

o Change the definition of "Atom" to permit either the definition
above or a UTF-8 string. That string MUST NOT contain any of the
ASCII characters (either graphics or controls) that are not
permitted in "atext"; it is otherwise unrestricted.

According to the description above, the syntax of an
internationalized email mailbox name (address) is defined in ABNF
[RFC5234] as follows.

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 7]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

uMailbox = uLocal-part "@" uDomain
; Replace Mailbox in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2

uLocal-part = uDot-string / uQuoted-string
; MAY be case-sensitive
; Replace Local-part in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2

uDot-string = uAtom *("." uAtom)
; Replace Dot-string in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2

uAtom = 1*ucharacter
; Replace Atom in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2

ucharacter = atext / UTF8-non-ascii

atext = <See section Section 3.2.4 of RFC 2822>

uQuoted-string = DQUOTE *uqcontent DQUOTE
; Replace Quoted-string in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2

DQUOTE = <See appendix B.1 of RFC 5234>

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

uqcontent = qcontent / UTF8-non-ascii

qcontent = <See section Section 3.2.5 of RFC 2822>

uDomain = (sub-udomain 1*("." sub-udomain)) / address-literal
; Replace Domain in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2

address-literal = <See section Section 4.1.2 of RFC 2822>

sub-udomain = uLet-dig [uLdh-str]
; Replace sub-domain in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.2

uLet-dig = Let-dig / UTF8-non-ascii

Let-dig = <See section Section 4.1.3 of RFC 2821>

uLdh-str = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / UTF8-non-ascii) uLet-dig
; Replace Ldh-str in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.3

UTF8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4

UTF8-2 = <See section Section 4 of RFC 3629>

UTF8-3 = <See section Section 4 of RFC 3629>

UTF8-4 = <See section Section 4 of RFC 3629>

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 8]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

The value of "uDomain" SHOULD be verified by applying the tests
specified as part of IDNA [RFC3490]. If that verification fails, the
email address with that uDomain MUST NOT be regarded as a valid email
address.

3.4. The ALT-ADDRESS Parameter

If the UTF8SMTP extension is offered, the syntax of the SMTP MAIL and
RCPT commands is extended to support the optional esmtp-keyword "ALT-
ADDRESS". That keyword specifies an alternate all-ASCII address

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

which that
may be used when downgrading. If the ALT-ADDRESS esmtp-keyword is
used, it MUST have an associated esmtp-value (ALT-ADDRESS-esmtp-
value, which is defined below).

While it may be tempting to consider ALT-ADDRESS as a general-purpose
second-chance address, such behavior is not defined here. Instead,
in this specification ALT-ADDRESS only has meaning when the
associated primary address is non-ASCII and the message is
downgraded. This restriction allows for future extension of the
specification even though no such extensions are currently
anticipated.

Based on the definition of mail-parameters in [RFC2821], the ALT-
ADDRESS parameter usage in the commands of "MAIL" MAIL and "RCPT" RCPT is defined
as follows. The following definitions are given in the same format
as used in RFC 2821.

"MAIL FROM:" ("<>" / uReverse-path) [ SP Mail-parameters ] CRLF
; Update the MAIL command in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.1.2.
; A new parameter defined by the ABNF non-terminal
; <ALT-ADDRESS-parameter> is added. It complies
; with the syntax specified for <esmtp-param> in RFC 2821.

"RCPT TO:" ("<Postmaster@" uDomain ">" / "<Postmaster>" /
uForward-path) [ SP Rcpt-parameters ] CRLF
; Update RCPT command in RFC 2821, section Section 4.1.1.3.
; A new parameter defined by the ABNF non-terminal
; <ALT-ADDRESS-parameter> is added. It complies
; with the syntax specified for <esmtp-param>.
; uDomain is defined in section Section 3.3 of this document document.

uReverse-path = uPath
; Replace Reverse-path in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2 Section 4.1.2.

uForward-path = uPath
; Replace Forward-path in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2 Section 4.1.2.

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 9]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

uPath = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] uMailbox ">"
; Replace Path in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2 Section 4.1.2.
; uMailbox is defined in section Section 3.3 of this document document.

A-d-l = <See section Section 4.1.2 of RFC 2821>

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

ALT-ADDRESS-parameter="ALT-ADDRESS="

ALT-ADDRESS-parameter = "ALT-ADDRESS=" ALT-ADDRESS-value

ALT-ADDRESS-value=

ALT-ADDRESS-value = xtext
; The value is a mailbox name encoded as xtext.

xtext=

xtext = <See section Section 4.2 of RFC 3461>

The ALT-ADDRESS-parameter MUST NOT appear more than once in any MAIL
or RCPT command. ALT-ADDRESS-esmtp-value MUST be an all-ASCII email
address before xtext encoding.

3.5. ALT-ADDRESS Parameter Usage and Response Codes

An "internationalized message" as defined in the appendix of this
specification MUST NOT be sent to an SMTP server that does not
support UTF8SMTP. Such a message MAY be rejected by a server if it
lacks ALT-ADDRESSes as discussed in Section 3.2 of this
specification.

The three-digit reply codes used in this section are consistent with
their meanings as defined in RFC 2821.

When messages are rejected because the RCPT command requires an ALT-
ADDRESS, the response code 553 is used with the meaning "mailbox name
not allowed". When messages are rejected for other reasons, such as
the MAIL command requiring an ALT-ADDRESS, the response code 550 is
used with the meaning "mailbox unavailable". When the server
supports enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463], response code
"5.6.x" [SMTP-codes]
"X.6.7" [RFC5248] is used, meaning that "The ALT-ADDRESS is required
but not specified".

If the response code is issued after the final "." of the DATA
command, the response code "554" is used with the meaning
"Transaction failed". When the server supports enhanced mail system
status codes [RFC3463], response code "5.6.z" [SMTP-codes] "X.6.9" [RFC5248] is used,
meaning that "UTF8SMTP downgrade failed".

[[anchor6:

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 10]

RFC Editor: please insert the proper error codes for
"5.6.x" and "5.6.z" after IANA has made the relevant assignments.]] 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

3.6. Body Parts and SMTP Extensions

There is no ESMTP parameter to assert that a message is an
internationalized message. An SMTP server that requires accurate
knowledge of whether a message is internationalized is required to
parse all message header fields and MIME header fields in the message

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008
body.

While this specification requires that servers support the 8BITMIME
extension [RFC1652] to ensure that servers have adequate handling
capability for 8-bit data and to avoid a number of complex encoding
problems, the use of internationalized addresses obviously does not
require non-ASCII body parts in the MIME message. The UTF8SMTP
extension MAY be used with the BODY=8BITMIME parameter if that is
appropriate given the body content or, with the BODY=BINARYMIME
parameter, if the server advertises BINARYMIME [RFC3030] and that is
appropriate.

Assuming that the server advertises UTF8SMTP and 8BITMIME, and
receives at least one non-ASCII address, with or without ALT-ADDRESS,
the precise interpretation of 'No BODY parameter', "BODY=8BITMIME",
and "BODY=BINARYMIME" in the MAIL command is:

1. If there is no BODY parameter, the header contains UTF-8
characters, but all the body parts are in ASCII (possibly as the
result of a Content-transfer-encoding). content-transfer-encoding).

2. If a BODY=8BITMIME parameter is present, the header contains
UTF-8 characters characters, and some or all of the body parts contain 8-bit
line-oriented data.

3. If a BODY=BINARYMIME parameter is present, the header contains
UTF-8 characters characters, and some or all body parts contain binary data
without restriction as to line lengths or delimiters.

3.7. Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications

The information carried in the mail transport process involves
addresses ("mailboxes") and domain names in various contexts in
addition to the MAIL and RCPT commands and extended alternatives to
them. In general, the rule is that, when RFC 2821 specifies a
mailbox, this specification expects UTF-8 to be used for the entire
string; when RFC 2821 specifies a domain name, the name SHOULD be in
the form of ACE labels if its raw form is non-ASCII.

The following subsections list and discuss all of the relevant cases.

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 11]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

3.7.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange

When an SMTP connection is opened, the server normally sends a
"greeting" response consisting of the '220' reply 220 response code and some
information. The client then sends the EHLO command. Since the
client cannot know whether the server supports UTF8SMTP until after
it receives the response from EHLO, any domain names that appear in
this dialogue, or in responses to EHLO, MUST be in the hostname form,
i.e., internationalized ones MUST be in the form of ACE labels.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

3.7.2. Mail eXchangers

Organizations often authorize multiple servers to accept mail
addressed to them. For example, the organization may itself operate
more than one server, and may also or instead have an agreement with
other organizations to accept mail as a backup. Authorized servers
are generally listed in MX records as described in RFC2821. RFC 2821. When
more than one server accepts mail for the domain-part of a mailbox,
it is strongly advised that either all or none of them support the
UTF8SMTP extension. Otherwise, surprising downgrades can happen
during temporary failures, which users might perceive as a serious
reliability issue.

3.7.3. Trace Information

When an SMTP server receives a message for delivery or further
processing, it MUST insert trace ("time stamp" or "Received")
information at the beginning of the message content. "Time stamp" or
"Received" appears in the form of "Received:" lines. The most
important use of Received: lines is for debugging mail faults. When
the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a message, it
inserts a return-path Return-path line at the beginning of the mail data. The
primary purpose of the Return-path is to designate the address to
which messages indicating non-delivery or other mail system failures
are to be sent. For the trace information, this memo updates the
time stamp line and the return path line [RFC2821] formally defined
as follows:

uReturn-path-line = "Return-Path:" FWS uReverse-path <CRLF>
; Replaces Return-path-line in section Section 4.4 of RFC2821 RFC 2821
; uReverse-path is defined in Section 3.3 of this document

uTime-stamp-line = "Received:" FWS uStamp <CRLF>
; Replaces Time-stamp-line in section Section 4.4 of RFC2821 RFC 2821

uStamp = From-domain By-domain uOpt-info ";" FWS date-time
; Replaces Stamp in section Section 4.4 of RFC2821 RFC 2821

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 12]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

uOpt-info = [Via] [With] [ID] [uFor]
; Replaces Opt-info in section Section 4.4 of RFC2821 RFC 2821
; The protocol value for With will allow a UTF8SMTP value

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

uFor = "FOR" ( FWS (uPath / uMailbox) ) CFWS
; Replaces For in section Section 4.4 of RFC2821 RFC 2821
; uPath and uMailbox are defined in Sections 2.4 and
; 2.3, respectively, of this document

Note: The FOR parameter has been changed to match the definition in
[RFC2821bis], permitting only one address in the For clause. The
group working on that document reached mailing list consensus that
the syntax in [RFC2821] that permitted more than one address was
simply a mistake.

Except in the 'uFor' clause and 'uReverse-path' value where non-ASCII
domain names may be used, internationalized domain names in Received
fields MUST be transmitted in the form of ACE labels. The protocol
value of the WITH clause when this extension is used is one of the
UTF8SMTP values specified in the "IANA Considerations" section of
this document.

3.7.4. UTF-8 Strings in Replies

3.7.4.1. MAIL and RCPT Commands

If the client issues a RCPT command containing non-ASCII characters,
the SMTP server is permitted to use UTF-8 characters in the email
address associated with 251 and 551 response codes.

If an SMTP client follows this specification and sends any RCPT
commands containing non-ASCII addresses, it MUST be able to accept
and process 251 or 551 replies responses containing UTF-8 email addresses.
If a given RCPT command does not include a non-ASCII envelope
address, the server MUST NOT return a 251 or 551 response containing
a non-
ASCII non-ASCII mailbox. Instead, it MUST transform such responses into
250 or 550 responses that do not contain addresses.

3.7.4.2. VRFY and EXPN Commands and the UTF8REPLY Parameter

If the VRFY and EXPN commands are transmitted with an optional
parameter "UTF8REPLY", it indicates the client can accept UTF-8
strings in replies from those commands. This allows the server to
use UTF-8 strings in mailbox names and full names which that occur in
replies without concern that the client might be confused by them.
An SMTP client that conforms to this specification MUST accept and
correctly process replies from the VRFY and EXPN commands that
contain UTF-8 strings. However However, the SMTP server MUST NOT use UTF-8

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 13]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

strings in replies if the SMTP client does not specifically allow
such replies by transmitting this parameter. Most replies do not
require that a mailbox name be included in the returned text text, and
therefore UTF-8 is not needed in them. Some replies, notably those

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008
resulting from successful execution of the VRFY and EXPN commands, do
include the mailbox, making the provisions of this section important.

VERIFY (VRFY) and EXPAND (EXPN) command syntaxes are changed to:

"VRFY" SP (uLocal-part / uMailbox) [SP "UTF8REPLY"] CRLF
; uLocal-part and uMailbox are defined in
; Section 3.3 of this document document.

"EXPN" SP ( uLocal-part / uMailbox ) [ SP "UTF8REPLY" ] CRLF
; uLocal-part and uMailbox are defined in
; Section 3.3 of this document document.

The "UTF8REPLY" parameter does not use a value. If the reply to a
VERIFY (VRFY) or EXPAND (EXPN) command requires UTF-8, but the SMTP
client does not use the "UTF8REPLY" parameter, then the server MUST
use either the reply response code 252 or 550. Response code 252, defined
in [RFC2821], means "Cannot VRFY user, but will accept the message
and attempt the delivery". Response code 550, also defined in
[RFC2821], means "Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable".
When the server supports enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463],
the enhanced response code as specified below is used. Using the
"UTF8REPLY" parameter with a VERIFY (VRFY) or EXPAND (EXPN) command
enables UTF-8 replies for that command only.

If a normal success response (i.e., 250) is returned, the response
MAY include the full name of the user and MUST include the mailbox of
the user. It MUST be in either of the following forms:

User Name <uMailbox>
; uMailbox is defined in section Section 3.3 of this document document.
; User Name can contain non-ASCII characters.

uMailbox
; uMailbox is defined in section Section 3.3 of this document document.

If the SMTP reply requires UTF-8 strings, but UTF-8 is not allowed in
the reply, and the server supports enhanced mail system status codes
[RFC3463], the enhanced response code is either "5.6.y" "X.6.8" or "2.6.y"
[SMTP-codes], "X.6.10"
[RFC5248], meaning "A reply containing a UTF-8 string is required to
show the mailbox name, but that form of response is not permitted by
the client".

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 14]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

If the SMTP Client client does not support the UTF8SMTP extension, but
receives a UTF-8 string in a reply, it may not be able to properly
report the reply to the user, and some clients might crash.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008
Internationalized messages in replies are only allowed in the
commands under the situations described above. Under any other
circumstances, UTF-8 text MUST NOT appear in the reply.

Although UTF-8 is needed to represent email addresses in responses
under the rules specified in this section, this extension does not
permit the use of UTF-8 for any other purposes. SMTP servers MUST
NOT include non-ASCII characters in replies except in the limited
cases specifically permitted in this section.

[[anchor11: RFC Editor: please insert the proper error codes for
"5.6.y" and "2.6.y" after IANA has made the relevant assignments.]]

4. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to add has added a new value "UTF8SMTP" to the SMTP Service Extension
subregistry of the Mail Parameters registry, according to the
following data:

This document adds new values to the SMTP Enhanced Status Code
subregistry of the Mail Parameters registry, following the guidance
in Section Sections 3.5 and Section 3.7.4.2 of this document, and being based on [SMTP-codes].
[RFC5248]. The registration data is as follows:

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 15]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

Code: 5.6.x X.6.7
Sample Text: The ALT-ADDRESS is required but not specified
Associated basic status code: 553, 550
Description: This indicates the reception of a MAIL or RCPT
commands
command that required an ALT-ADDRESS parameter
but such parameter was not present.
Defined: RFC XXXX. 5336 (Experimental track)
Submitter: Jiankang YAO
Change controller: IESG.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

Code: 5.6.y X.6.8
Sample Text: UTF-8 string reply is required,
but not permitted by the client
Associated basic status code: 553, 550
Description: This indicates that a reply containing a UTF-8
string is required to show the mailbox name,
but that form of response is not
permitted by the client client.
Defined: RFC XXXX. 5336. (Experimental track)
Submitter: Jiankang YAO
Change controller: IESG.

Code: 5.6.z X.6.9
Sample Text: UTF8SMTP downgrade failed
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This indicates that transaction failed
after the final "." of the DATA command command.
Defined: RFC XXXX. 5336. (Experimental track)
Submitter: Jiankang YAO
Change controller: IESG.

Code: 2.6.y X.6.10
Sample Text: UTF-8 string reply is required,
but not permitted by the client
Associated basic status code: 252
Description: This indicates that a reply containing a UTF-8
string is required to show the mailbox name,
but that form of response is not
permitted by the client client.
Defined: RFC XXXX. 5336. (Experimental track)
Submitter: Jiankang YAO
Change controller: IESG.

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 16]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

The "Mail Transmission Types" registry under the Mail Parameters
registry is requested to be updated to include the following new
entries:

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 16]

5. Security Considerations

See the extended security considerations discussion in the framework
document [RFC4952].

6. Acknowledgements

Much of the text in the initial version of this specification was
derived or copied from [Klensin-emailaddr] [Emailaddr] with the permission of the author.
Significant comments and suggestions were received from Xiaodong LEE,
Nai-Wen Hsu, Yangwoo KO, Yoshiro YONEYA, and other members of the JET
team and were incorporated into the specification. Additional
important comments and suggestions, and often specific text, were
contributed by many members of the WG and design team.
Those contributions include material from John C Klensin, Charles
Lindsey, Dave Crocker, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Marcos Sanz, Chris
Newman, Martin Duerst, Edmon Chung, Tony Finch, Kari Hurtta, Randall
Gellens, Frank Ellermann, Alexey Melnikov, Pete Resnick, S.
Moonesamy, Soobok Lee, Shawn Steele, Alfred Hoenes Miguel Garcia,
Magnus Westerlund and Lars Eggert. Of course, none of the
individuals are necessarily responsible for the combination of ideas
represented here.

7. Change History

[[anchor15: RFC Editor: Please remove this section.]]

7.1. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 00

This version supercedes draft-yao-ima-smtpext-03.txt. It refines the
ABNF definition of the internationalized email address. It
represents as the EAI working group document.

7.2. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 01

o Upgraded to reflect discussions during IETF 66.
o Remove the atomic parameter.
o Add the new section of "the Suggestion of the value of the ALT-
ADDRESS parameter".

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

7.3. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 02

o Upgraded to reflect the recent discussion of the ima@ietf.org
mailing list.
o Add the section of "Body Parts and SMTP Extensions".
o Add the new section of "Change History".
o Add the subsection about SMTP extensions for DSN.

7.4. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 03

o Update the syntax related to mailbox.
o Update the trace field section.
o Add the new section about message retry.
o Update the subsection about SMTP extensions for DSN.

7.5. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 04

o Refine some syntax.
o Delete "Message Header Label" section.
o Change "bounce" to "reject".

7.6. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 05

o Refine the abstract.
o Delete "The Suggestion of the Value of the ALT-ADDRESS parameter"
section.
o Move original section 2.7.4 and 2.7.5 to section 3 with the name
"Issues with other parts of the email system".
o Add the new section "LMTP".
o Refine some text according to suggestions from the EAI mailing
list discussion
o Remove the section "Mailing List Question"

7.7. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 06

o Delete the section about message retry.
o Add the new subsection about Mail eXchangers
o Add the new section about "UTF-8 Reply"
o Refine some response code for the section "Using the ALT-ADDRESS
parameter"

7.8. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 07

o Rename the section 2.5
o Refine the section 2.7

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

7.9. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 08

o Refine some texts and update some references

7.10. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 09

o Add the appendix
o Move section 3.1, 3.2 and section 5 to Appendix
o Remove section 3.3 and section 4
o Add the new term definitions of conventional message and
international message in the appendix
o Refine some texts according to suggestions from the EAI mailing
list discussion during WG Last call
o Use the same reference for ASCII as RFC 2821.
o General editorial revision and cleanup, including extensive
modifications to the XML to produce a version that has better odds
of getting through the various checkers and validators.

7.11. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 10

o Refine the text
o Add some text about "ALT-ADDRESS" in the section 2.4
o Add the appendix A.5

7.12. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 11

o Refine the text
o Reference updating

7.13. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 12

o Remove the section 1.2 about Proposal Context and merge the text
into new section 2
o Add the new section 2 about overview members of operation
o Update the IANA consideration
o Refine the text

7.14. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 13

o Update the Abstract
o Refine WG and design team. Those
contributions include material from John C Klensin, Charles Lindsey,
Dave Crocker, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Marcos Sanz, Chris Newman,
Martin Duerst, Edmon Chung, Tony Finch, Kari Hurtta, Randall Gellens,
Frank Ellermann, Alexey Melnikov, Pete Resnick, S. Moonesamy, Soobok
Lee, Shawn Steele, Alfred Hoenes, Miguel Garcia, Magnus Westerlund,
and Lars Eggert. Of course, none of the syntax about individuals are necessarily
responsible for the equivalent combination of import clause

8. References ideas represented here.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 Experimental [Page 19]

Internet-Draft 17]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension July September 2008

8.1.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United
States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.

[EAI-dsn] Newman, C. and A. Melnikov, "SMTP extensions for DSNs",
draft-ietf-eai-dsn-06.txt (work in progress),
January 2008.

[EAI-utf8header]
Abel, Y., "Transmission of Email Headers in UTF-8
Encoding", draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-12.txt (work in
progress), July 2008.

[RFC1652] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport", 8bit-
MIMEtransport", RFC 1652, July 1994.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.

[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.

[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
(DSNs)", RFC 3461, January 2003.

[RFC3463] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
RFC 3463, January 2003.

[RFC3464] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message
Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
January 2003.

[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.

[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

[RFC4409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for
Mail", RFC 4409, April 2006.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008

[RFC4952] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", RFC 4952, July 2007.

[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

[SMTP-codes]
Hansen ,

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 18]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

[RFC5248] Hansen, T. and J. Klensin, "A Registry for SMTP
Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
draft-hansen-4468upd-mailesc-registry-03 (work in
progress), January BCP 138, RFC 5248,
June 2008.

8.2. Informative References

[EAI-downgrading]
YONEYA,

[RFC5335] Abel, Y., Ed. Ed., "Internationalized Email Headers",
RFC 5335, September 2008.

[RFC5337] Newman, C. and K. Fujiwara, A. Melnikov, Ed., "Internationalized
Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications",
RFC 5337, September 2008.

7.2. Informative References

[Downgrade] Fujiwara, K. and Y. Yoneya, "Downgrading mechanism for Internationalized eMail Address",
draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-07 (work
Email Address Internationalization", Work in progress), 3 Progress,
July 2008.

[Klensin-emailaddr]

[Emailaddr] Klensin, J., "Internationalization of Email Addresses",
draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-03 (work
Work in progress), Progress, July 2005.

[RFC0974] Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system",
RFC 974, January 1986.

[RFC2033] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,
October 1996.

[RFC2821bis] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol",
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10 (work Work
in progress), 4 Progress, July 2008.

[RFC3030] Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for
Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages",
RFC 3030, December 2000.

[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP
over Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207,
February 2002.

[RFC4954] Siemborski, R. R., Ed. and A. Melnikov, Ed., "SMTP Service
Extension for Authentication", RFC 4954, July 2007.

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 19]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

Appendix A. Material Updating RFC 4952

RFC 4952, the Overview overview and Framework framework document covering this set of

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008
extensions for internationalized email [RFC4952], email, was completed before this
specification, which specifies a particular part of the protocol set.
This appendix, which is normative, contains material that would have
been incorporated into RFC 4952 had it been delayed until the work
described in the rest of this specification was
completed and that completed. This
material should be included in any update to RFC 4952.

A.1. Conventional Message and Internationalized Message

o A conventional message is one that does not use any extension
defined in this document or in the UTF8header UTF-8 header specification
[EAI-utf8header],
[RFC5335], and which is strictly conformant to RFC 2822 [RFC2822].

o An internationalized message is a message utilizing one or more of
the extensions defined in this specification or in the UTF8header UTF-8
header specification [EAI-utf8header], [RFC5335], so that it is no longer conformant
to the RFC 2822 specification of a message.

A.2. LMTP

LMTP [RFC2033] may be used as the final delivery agent. In such
cases, LMTP may be arranged to deliver the mail to the mail store.
The mail store may not have UTF8SMTP capability. LMTP need needs to be
updated to deal with these situations.

A.3. SMTP Service Extension for DSNs

The existing draft standard Delivery Draft Standard regarding delivery status notifications
(DSNs) [RFC3461] is limited to ASCII text in the machine readable
portions of the protocol. "International Delivery Status and
Disposition Notifications" [EAI-dsn] [RFC5337] adds a new address type for
international email addresses so an original recipient address with
non-ASCII characters can be correctly preserved even after
downgrading. If an SMTP server advertises both the UTF8SMTP and the
DSN extension, that server MUST implement EAI-dsn [EAI-dsn] EAI DSN [RFC5337] including
support for the ORCPT parameter.

A.4. Implementation Advice

In the absence of this extension, SMTP clients and servers are
constrained to using only those addresses permitted by RFC 2821. The
local parts of those addresses MAY be made up of any ASCII
characters, although some of them MUST be quoted as specified there.
It is notable in an internationalization context that there is a long
history on some systems of using overstruck ASCII characters (a

Yao & Mao Experimental [Page 20]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension September 2008

character, a backspace, and another character) within a quoted string
to approximate non-ASCII characters. This form of
internationalization SHOULD be phased out as this extension becomes

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft EAI SMTP Extension July 2008
widely deployed deployed, but backward-compatibility considerations require
that it continue to be supported.

A.5. Applicability of SMTP Extension to Additional Uses

Among other protocol changes, the SMTP extension allows an optional
alternate address to be supplied with the MAIL and RCPT commands.
For the purposes of this set of specifications, this alternate
address only has meaning when the primary address contains UTF-8
characters and the message is downgraded. While it may be tempting
to consider the alternate address as a general-purpose second-chance
address,
address to be used whenever the primary address is rejected, such
behavior is not defined here. This restriction allows for future
extensions to be developed which create such a general-purpose
second-chance address, although no specific work on such an extension
is currently anticipated. Note that any such extension needs to
consider the question of what the [RFC0974] sequencing rules mean
when different possible servers support different sets of ESMTP
options (or, in this case, addresses). The answer to this question
may also imply updates to [RFC2821].

Authors' Addresses

Jiankang YAO (editor)
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing

Phone: +86 10 58813007
Email:
EMail: yaojk@cnnic.cn

Wei MAO (editor)
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing

Phone: +86 10 58812230
Email:
EMail: maowei_ietf@cnnic.cn

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 Experimental [Page 23]

Internet-Draft 21]

RFC 5336 EAI SMTP Extension July September 2008

Full Copyright Statement

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.

Yao & Mao Expires January 9, 2009 Experimental [Page 24] 22]

----