Mapping Between the Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) and Internet Mail
draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-06

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The cellular telephone industry has defined a service known as the Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS). This service uses formats and protocols that are similar to, but differ in key ways from, those used in Internet mail.

One important difference between MMS and Internet Mail is that MMS uses headers that start with "X-Mms-" to carry a variety of user agent- and server-related information elements.

This document specifies how to exchange messages between these two services, including mapping information elements as used in MMS X-Mms-* headers as well as delivery and disposition reports, to and from that used in SMTP and Internet message headers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]')

[Note]: 'This is returning post-appeal processing by the WG and post replacement IETF Last Call.  If we can complete this on 12/1, it will likely be referenced by OMA (currently the text is copied)' added by Amy Vezza

IANA Last Call Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will add "MMS" (Multimedia
Messaging Service) to the WITH protocol types registry found at the following:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters

[Note]: 'This is returning post-appeal processing by the WG and post replacement IETF Last Call.  If we can complete this on 12/1, it will likely be referenced by OMA (currently the text is copied)' added by Michelle Cotton

[Note]: 'This is returning post-appeal processing by the WG and post replacement IETF Last Call.  If we can complete this on 12/1, it will likely be referenced by OMA (currently the text is copied)' added by Ted Hardie

[Ballot discuss]
(Based on a long solicited review by John Klensin, which has been copied to the author and AD)

Should state unambiguously whether ESMTP features are REQUIRED

Appears to assign semantics to comments and X- headers.

Resent-Count header may become inconsistent under SMTP semantics

Received header creation is underspecified

Several other inconsistencies

[Ballot discuss]
(Based on a long solicited review by John Klensin, which has been copied to the author and AD)

Should state unambiguously whether ESMTP features are REQUIRED

Appears to assign semantics to comments and X- headers.

Resent-Count header may become inconsistent under SMTP semantics

Received header creation is underspecified

Several other inconsistencies

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations say that S/MIME or PGP SHOULD be used.
  Yet, these are not discussed in the mapping.  I assume that MMS does
  not have support for digital signature or end-to-end encryption.
  If I am correct, then the security considerations needs to discuss
  the consequences of S/MIME and PGP terminating at the place where
  mapping is performed.