Guidelines for Optional Services for Internet Fax Gateways
draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-08
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4161.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | T Satoh , Ken Watanabe , Keiichi Yokoyama , Katsuhiko Mimura , Chie Kanaide | ||
Last updated | 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2005-02-02) | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 4161 (Informational) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | Scott Hollenbeck | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-08
Network Working Group K.Mimura
Internet-Draft: draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-08.txt K.Yokoyama
T.Satoh
K.Watanabe
C.Kanaide
TOYO Communication Equipment
January 21 2005
Guideline of optional services for Internet FAX Gateway
Status Of This Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, we certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been
disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in
accordance with RFC 3668. 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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
To allow connectivity between the general switched telephone network
facsimile service (GSTN fax) and the e-mail based Internet Fax
service (i-fax) an "Internet FAX Gateway" is required. This document
provides guidelines for the optional functionality of Internet FAX
Gateways. In this context, an "offramp gateway" provides facsimile
data transmission from i-fax to GSTN fax; viceversa an "onramp
gateway" provides data transmission form GSTN fax to i-fax. The
recommendations in this document apply to the integrated service
including Internet Fax terminals, computers with i-fax software on
the Internet, and GSTN Fax terminals on the GSTN.
This document supplements the recommendation for minimal features
of an Internet Fax Gateway. In particular it covers techniques to
drop duplicated fax messages, automatic fax re-transmission, error,
return notice and log handling and possible authorization methods
by DTMF (Dual Tone Multi-Frequency) for onramp gateways.
1. Introduction
An Internet FAX Gateway can be classified as either an offramp
gateway or an onramp gateway. This document provides guidelines
for optional services and examples of an Internet FAX Gateway
operations. In particular it covers techniques to drop duplicated
fax messages, automatic fax re-transmission, error, return notice
and log handling and possible authorization methods by DTMF (Dual
Tone Multi-Frequency) for onramp gateways.
A more detailed definition of onramps and offramps is provided in
[1]. Information on recommended behaviors for Internet FAX Gateway
functions are defined in [2].
This document provides recommendations only for the specific case
hereunder:
1) the operational mode of the Internet Fax is "store and forward",
as defined in Section 2.5 of [1].
2) The format of image data is the data format defined by "simple
mode" in [3].
This document does not apply to the gateway functions for
"real-time Internet Fax", as described and defined in [5].
1.1 Key words
The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [4].
2. Optional Services for an Offramp Gateway
2.1 Drop duplicated GSTN fax transmission
Electronic mail transport agents (MTA) deliver an Internet fax
message either into the recipient's or an offramp gateway mailbox;
hence the message is retrieved for further action, which in the case
of the offramp gateway, will result in its delivery to the GSTN fax
service.
The offramp gateway mailbox will thus receive all messages which
the gateway shall process, regardless of their final distinct GSTN
destination. As such, addresses like
Fax=+12224567654@example.com
Fax=+38155234578@example.com
Fax=+3904567437777@example.com
will all end up into the offramp gateway mailbox corresponding to
the "example.com" domain.
The handling of e-mail messages (including Internet fax ones)
containing more than one recipient, but directed to the same final
MTA can however be different, depending on the MTA configuration or
features: a single message with multiple recipients in the SMTP
envelope [6] is likely to be the most common case on the mail
transport system, but it may happen that multiple copies of the
same message are transmitted, one per each recipient. Or it may
happen that the final MTA is set to deliver a separate copy of the
message per each recipient into the final mailbox, supposing it is
delivering messages to real separate end user's mailboxes.
It may thus happen that the offramp gateway receives multiple
copies of the same Internet fax message, to be delivered to
different GSTN destinations, all listed together, and repeatedly,
into the e-mail message headers [7] of the Internet fax. In such
cases, the offramp gateway SHOULD implement techniques to avoid
duplicate or even multiple transmission over GSTN of the same fax
message to the same recipient.
Here are some possible, but non-exclusive examples of these
techniques.
2.1.1 SMTP envelope addresses check
Using the SMTP [6] envelope destination address given as "RCPT TO"
field is usually the best technique to ensure that a received
message must be delivered to that address, and to avoid duplicate
deliveries.
If the offramp gateway has the "RCPT TO" information still
available during processing, then it MUST use it to determine the
recipients over GSTN fax service.
2.1.2 Message-ID check
If the SMTP "RCPT TO" information is not available, for example
in the case the offramp gateway retrieves messages from its mailbox
using either POP [8] or IMAP [9] protocols, the message header
"Message-ID" (see [7]) MAY be used to check if a message has
already been processed, and hence avoid retransmission to all its
GSTN recipients handled by the offramp gateway.
2.2 Error handling
2.2.1 Recoverable errors
Recoverable errors happening during GSTN transmission are those
where there is good chance that the error may not occur at the next
attempt. This category includes "busy signal", "no line/carrier
signal", etc.
For all these errors, the offramp gateway SHOULD re-queue the
message and perform a retransmission attempt later on, as specified
in section 2.3
2.2.2 Non-recoverable errors
If the error occurring during GSTN transmission is likely to be a
non recoverable one, such as for example remote device paper
related errors (jam, empty tray, ...), no response from remote
destination, voice response, data modem response, or a stop event
error, the offramp gateway SHOULD NOT attempt retransmission, and
an error Message Delivery Notification (MDN) with appropriate error
codes MUST be generated for the Internet fax message sender.
2.3 Automatic re-transmission handling
An offramp gateway SHOULD implement a function that automatically
tries to send facsimile data again if recoverable delivery failure
occurs. If this function is implemented, then:
- the retry times and retry interval MAY be specified as options
by the administrator of the offramp gateway;
- any error return notice SHOULD be sent only when the number of
retries has been completed without success;
- if transmission is suspended due to an error, then the
subsequent transmission attempt SHOULD avoid retransmitting the
pages already delivered successfully, if any.
2.4 Multiple return notice handling
An offramp gateway can receive an Internet fax for delivery to
multiple GSTN recipients. If errors occur, thus requiring to
inform the Internet fax sender about them, or if the Internet fax
sender himself requested delivery notifications, then the offramp
gateway has various possibilities to handle these multiple return
notices:
1) an offramp gateway sends a return notice as soon as an error or
a successful delivery occurs, per single GSTN recipient;
2) an offramp gateway gathers all information about the message,
but sends a return notice only after all or a number of GSTN
recipients have been handled (successfully or not);
If case 2 is implemented, then the offramp gateway MAY choose also
to send separate successful and failure notices, or to limit the
number of GSTN recipients handled per single return note, for
example no more than 10 recipients per return note.
2.5 Handling transmission errors for a return notice
When an offramp gateway fails in the transmission of a return
notice, the Internet FAX Gateway SHOULD process the notice in
either of the following ways:
1) the return notices SHOULD be re-queued, and delivery retried
later. The number of retry attempts and the time interval among
then MAY be a feature configured by the offramp gateway
administrator. This is preferred method to implement; however,
if all the retransmission attempts fails, processing SHOULD
continue as in case 2;
2) if the gateway does not have enough capabilities to handle notice
re-queuing, but has a log information preservation function, the
error information SHOULD be recorded to a log, and processing
SHOULD end. At this time, the administrator of the gateway system
SHOULD be notified of these errors using a specific method (for
example by sending him an e-mail message).
3) If the gateway does not even have a log information preservation
function, the administrator SHOULD be notified about the failure,
for example via an e-mail message, and processing SHOULD end.
2.6 Offramp gateway log
An offramp gateway SHOULD have a function which keeps information
listed as a log, either specific to the fax gateway, or inside some
other log file existing locally on the gateway itself or remotely.
If the fax gateway or the remote system are equipped with a recording
media the log information SHOULD be saved as a log file. As a last
resort, if no recording media are available, the log MAY be printed.
The information listed in the log MAY be the following:
- Date and time when the Internet fax is received
- Sender address
- Recipient address(es)
- Start date and time of transmission over GSTN
- End date and time of transmission over GSTN
- Number of actually transmitted pages
- Number of actually transmitted bytes
- Fax resolution used
- Error codes/text occurred during transmission
- Number of transmission attempts (retries)
- Date and time of transmission of the (eventual) delivery notice
3. Optional Services for an Onramp Gateway
3.1 Examples of user authorization
An onramp gateway MAY have a user authorization function to confirm
that the user is authorized to transmit facsimile into the Internet
fax service. For example, user authorization may be accomplished by
getting a user-ID and password received by DTMF, or via a local
authorization table based on the GSTN caller-ID. The following
sub-sections give some possible examples, but other methods are also
possible.
3.1.1 Authorization via GSTN caller-ID
The most simple method to authenticate and authorize a GSTN fax
service user is by using the GSTN caller-ID. If available, in fact,
the caller-ID is generated by the GSTN network service itself, and
it is quite difficult to produce fake ones. In other words, the
security related to this authentication method rely on the confidence
that the GSTN caller-ID service is secure by itself.
The GSTN sender MAY be authorized via a lookup into a table managed
by the onramp gateway administrator, both via complete or partial
(wildcard) matches.
3.1.2 Authorization via GSTN fax "station ID"
During the initial GSTN fax service negotiation, the sender fax
can send to the onramp gateway various information, including the
"station ID" alphanumeric string. This string MAY thus be used to
transmit authentication and authorization information for subsequent
lookup by the onramp gateway. Thus user-id and an eventual password
MAY be sent inside this string.
If used as the only authentication, this method is however much less
secure than the caller-ID one, as the user of the calling GSTN station
can decide which string to send, and the string itself travels in
clear form over the GSTN. Given this security warning, this method
however allows more flexibility to the GSTN user: in fact it is not
tied to a single GSTN fax terminal, and authorization can be obtained
from anywhere, provided the sender has the possibility to configure
the "station ID" on the device being used.
A combination of caller-ID and station ID check MAY, on the other
hand, result in a greatly improved level of security.
3.1.3 Authorization via DTMF
An onramp gateway MAY implement the Authorization function by
requesting that a user ID and password information are sent over
GSTN via DTMF. For example, this function MAY be accomplished
requesting this DTMF information is send just after the connection
over GSTN is established, before starting the GSTN fax negotiation,
but other methods are also possible.
3.2 Onramp gateway log
An onramp gateway SHOULD have a function which keeps information
listed as a log, either specific to the fax gateway, or inside some
other log file existing locally on the gateway itself or remotely.
If the fax gateway or the remote system are equipped with a recording
media the log information SHOULD be saved as a log file. As a last
resort, if no recording media are available, the log MAY be printed.
The information listed in the log MAY be the following:
- Start date and time of transmission from GSTN
- End date and time of transmission from GSTN
- Number of actually received pages
- Number of actually received bytes
- Fax resolution used
- Sender address (if available)
- Recipient address(es)
- Date and time when the Internet fax is sent
- Error codes/text occurred during Internet fax transmission
- Number of transmission attempts (retries)
- Date and time of transmission of the (eventual) delivery notice
4. Security Considerations
Refer to Section 3.1 (User authorization) for authentication for an
onramp gateway. In particular, sending the user IDs and password in
clear, as described in section 3.1.2 can pose high security risks,
and thus is NOT RECOMMENDED.
S/MIME [10][19][20][21][22] ]and OpenPGP [11] [18] can also be used
to encrypt an Internet fax message. A signed or encrypted message is
protected while transported along the network; however when a message
reach an Internet fax gateway, either onramp or offramp, this kind
of protection cannot be applied anymore. Security must rely here on
trusted operations of the gateway itself. A gateway might have its
own certificate/key to improve security operations when sending
Internet faxes, but as any gateway it breaks the end to end security
pattern of both S/MIME and OpenPGP.
Other security mechanisms, like IPsec [12][13][14][15][16] or TLS [17]
also do not ensure a secure gateway operation.
Denial of Service attacks are beyond the scope of this document.
Host Compromise caused by flaws in the implementation is beyond the
scope of this document.
5. References
5.1 Informative group
[1] L. Masinter, "Terminology and Goals for Internet Fax", RFC 2542,
March 1999.
[10] R. Housley, "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC3852, July 2004.
[11] J. Callas, L. Donnerhacke, H. Finney, R. Thayer, ,
"OpenPGP Message Format", RFC2440, November 1998.
[12] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[13] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC2402,
November 1998.
[14] K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC3168, September 2001.
[15] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation
for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[16] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N. and R. Glenn, "IP Security Document
Roadmap", RFC2411, November 1998.
[17] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Extensions", RFC3456, June 2003.
[18] Elkins et. al., "MIME Security with OpenPGP", RFC 3156,
August 2001.
[19] E. Rescorla, "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method", RFC2631,
June 1999.
[20] B. Ramsdell, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate Handling ", RFC3850, June 1999.
[21] B. Ramsdell, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification ", RFC3851, June 1999.
[22] P. Hoffman, "Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME", RFC2634,
June 1999.
5.2 Normative group
[2] K. Mimura, K. Yokoyama, T. Satoh, C. Kanaide, "Internet FAX
Gateway Requirements", draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol,
January 2005.
[3] K. Toyoda, H. Ohno, J. Murai, and D. Wing, "A Simple Mode of
Facsimile Using Internet Mail", RFC 3965, December 2004.
[4] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] "Procedures for real-time Group 3 facsimile communication over IP
networks", ITU-T Recommendation T.38, June 1998.
[6] Postel, J. "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
August 1982.
[7] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text
messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[8] Myers, J., Rose, M. "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", RFC1939,
May 1996
[9] Crispin, M. "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1",
RFC3501, March 2003.
6. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.
7. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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 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.
8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Claudio Allocchio (Consortium GARR, Italy) for its final
review of this document, and for contributing the authorization
and security sections of this document.
9. Author's Address
Katsuhiko Mimura
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: mimu@macroware.co.jp
Keiichi Yokoyama
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email:keiyoko@msn.com
Takahisa Satoh
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: zsatou@toyocom.co.jp
Ken Watanabe
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: knabe@toyocom.co.jp
Chie Kanaide
TOYO Communication Equipment CO., LTD.
2-1-1 Koyato, Samukawa-machi, Koza-gun
Kanagawa-pref., Japan
Fax: +81 467 74 5743
Email: kanaide@toyocom.co.jp
Claudio Allocchio
Consortium GARR
Viale Palmiro Togliatti 1625
00155 Roma, Italy
Fax: +39 040 3758565
Email: Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it
Revision history (to be deleted before publication)
00a 31-Oct-2000 Initial draft.
01a 21-Feb-2001 Rebuild next definition
2.6 keep log
3.2 keep log
Added next definition
2.5 When a transmitting error occurred in return notice
02a 22-May-2001 Rebuild next definition
2.6 keep log
3.2 keep log
4. Security Considerations
03a 28-June-2001 Rebuild next definition
3.1 Example of User authorization
04a 19-September-2001 Rebuild next definition
4. Security Considerations
4a 20-March-2002 Corrections and clarifications.
Dropped reference to RFC2119.
Moved Intellectual Property after section 1.
Fixed Security considerations.
4b 25-March-2002 Reword first paragraph of section 2.1
Arrange 5. References again.
06 25-July 2004 Corrections and clarifications.
07 20-July-2004 5. References
split to Informative and Normative
08 21-Jan-2005 Full review/rewrite to clean up language
and address IESG "Discuss".
Mimura, et. al. Expires January 2005 [Page9]