Network Working Group N. Freed
Internet-Draft Sun Microsystems
Obsoletes: 2048 (if approved) J. Klensin
Expires: February 6, 2006 August 5, 2005
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures
draft-freed-mime-p4-07.txt
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 February 6, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document specifies IANA registration procedures for MIME
external body access types and content-transfer-encodings.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. External Body Access Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Registration Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Naming Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2 Mechanism Specification Requirements . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3 Publication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.4 Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Present the Access Type to the Community . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Access Type Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 IANA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Location of Registered Access Type List . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 IANA Procedures for Registering Access Types . . . . . . . 5
3. Transfer Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Transfer Encoding Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1 Naming Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2 Algorithm Specification Requirements . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3 Input Domain Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.4 Output Range Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.5 Data Integrity and Generality Requirements . . . . . . 8
3.1.6 New Functionality Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.7 Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Transfer Encoding Definition Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 IANA Procedures for Transfer Encoding Registration . . . . 9
3.4 Location of Registered Transfer Encodings List . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A. Changes made since RFC 2048 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
1. Introduction
Recent Internet protocols have been carefully designed to be easily
extensible in certain areas. In particular, MIME [RFC2045] is an
open-ended framework and can accommodate additional object types,
charsets, and access methods without any changes to the basic
protocol. A registration process is needed, however, to ensure that
the set of such values is developed in an orderly, well-specified,
and public manner.
This document defines registration procedures which use the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a central registry for such
values.
Note
Registration of media types and charsets for use in MIME are now
specified in separate documents and are no longer addressed here.
1.1 Conventions Used In This Document
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 [RFC2119].
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
2. External Body Access Types
[RFC2046] defines the message/external-body media type, whereby a
MIME entity can act as pointer to the actual body data in lieu of
including the data directly in the entity body. Each message/
external-body reference specifies an access type, which determines
the mechanism used to retrieve the actual body data. RFC 2046
defines an initial set of access types, but allows for the
registration of additional access types to accommodate new retrieval
mechanisms.
2.1 Registration Requirements
New access type specifications MUST conform to a number of
requirements as described below.
2.1.1 Naming Requirements
Each access type MUST have a unique name. This name appears in the
access-type parameter in the message/external-body content-type
header field, and MUST conform to MIME content type parameter syntax.
2.1.2 Mechanism Specification Requirements
All of the protocols, transports, and procedures used by a given
access type MUST be described, either in the specification of the
access type itself or in some other publicly available specification,
in sufficient detail for the access type to be implemented by any
competent implementor. Use of secret and/or proprietary methods in
access types is expressly prohibited. The restrictions imposed by
[RFC2026] on the standardization of patented algorithms must be
respected as well.
2.1.3 Publication Requirements
All access types MUST be described by an RFC. The RFC may be
informational rather than standards-track, although standard-track
review and approval are encouraged for all access types.
2.1.4 Security Requirements
Any known security issues that arise from the use of the access type
MUST be completely and fully described. It is not required that the
access type be secure or that it be free from risks, but that the
known risks be identified. Publication of a new access type does not
require an exhaustive security review, and the security
considerations section is subject to continuing evaluation.
Additional security considerations SHOULD be addressed by publishing
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
revised versions of the access type specification.
2.2 Registration Procedure
Registration of a new access type starts with the the publication of
the specification as an internet-draft.
2.2.1 Present the Access Type to the Community
Send a proposed access type specification to the
"ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for a two week review period.
This mailing list has been established for the purpose of reviewing
proposed access and media types. Proposed access types are not
formally registered and must not be used.
The intent of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback
on the access type specification and a review of any security
considerations.
2.2.2 Access Type Reviewer
When the two week period has passed, the access type reviewer, who is
appointed by the IETF Applications Area Director(s), either forwards
the request to iana@iana.org, or rejects it because of significant
objections raised on the list.
Decisions made by the reviewer must be posted to the ietf-types
mailing list within 14 days. Decisions made by the reviewer may be
appealed to the IESG as specified in [RFC2026].
2.2.3 IANA Registration
Provided that the access type has either passed review or has been
successfully appealed to the IESG, the IANA will register the access
type and make the registration available to the community. The
specification of the access type must also be published as an RFC.
2.3 Location of Registered Access Type List
Access type registrations are listed by the IANA on the web page:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/access-types
2.4 IANA Procedures for Registering Access Types
The identity of the access type reviewer is communicated to the IANA
by the IESG. The IANA then only acts in response to access type
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
definitions that either are approved by the access type reviewer and
forwarded by the reviewer to the IANA for registration, or in
response to a communication from the IESG that an access type
definition appeal has overturned the access type reviewer's ruling.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
3. Transfer Encodings
Transfer encodings are tranformations applied to MIME media types
after conversion to the media type's canonical form. Transfer
encodings are used for several purposes:
o Many transports, especially message transports, can only handle
data consisting of relatively short lines of text. There can also
be severe restrictions on what characters can be used in these
lines of text -- some transports are restricted to a small subset
of US-ASCII and others cannot handle certain character sequences.
Transfer encodings are used to transform binary data into textual
form that can survive such transports. Examples of this sort of
transfer encoding include the base64 and quoted-printable transfer
encodings defined in [RFC2045].
o Image, audio, video, and even application entities are sometimes
quite large. Compression algorithms are often quite effective in
reducing the size of large entities. Transfer encodings can be
used to apply general-purpose non-lossy compression algorithms to
MIME entities.
o Transport encodings can be defined as a means of representing
existing encoding formats in a MIME context.
IMPORTANT: The standardization of a large numbers of different
transfer encodings is seen as a significant barrier to widespread
interoperability and is expressely discouraged. Nevertheless, the
following procedure has been defined to provide a means of defining
additional transfer encodings, should standardization actually be
justified.
3.1 Transfer Encoding Requirements
Transfer encoding specifications MUST conform to a number of
requirements as described below.
3.1.1 Naming Requirements
Each transfer encoding MUST have a unique name. This name appears in
the Content-Transfer-Encoding header field and MUST conform to the
syntax of that field.
3.1.2 Algorithm Specification Requirements
All of the algorithms used in a transfer encoding (e.g., conversion
to printable form, compression) MUST be described in their entirety
in the transfer encoding specification. Use of secret and/or
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
proprietary algorithms in standardized transfer encodings is
expressly prohibited. The restrictions imposed by [RFC2026] on the
standardization of patented algorithms MUST be respected as well.
3.1.3 Input Domain Requirements
All transfer encodings MUST be applicable to an arbitrary sequence of
octets of any length. Dependence on particular input forms is not
allowed.
It should be noted that the 7bit and 8bit encodings do not conform to
this requirement. Aside from the undesireability of having
specialized encodings, the intent here is to forbid the addition of
additional encodings similar to or redundant with 7bit and 8bit.
3.1.4 Output Range Requirements
There is no requirement that a particular tranfer encoding produce a
particular form of encoded output. However, the output format for
each transfer encoding MUST be fully and completely documented. In
particular, each specification MUST clearly state whether the output
format always lies within the confines of 7bit data, 8bit data, or is
simply pure binary data.
3.1.5 Data Integrity and Generality Requirements
All transfer encodings MUST be fully invertible on any platform; it
MUST be possible for anyone to recover the original data by
performing the corresponding decoding operation. Note that this
requirement effectively excludes all forms of lossy compression as
well as all forms of encryption from use as a transfer encoding.
3.1.6 New Functionality Requirements
All transfer encodings MUST provide some sort of new functionality.
Some degree of functionality overlap with previously defined transfer
encodings is acceptable, but any new transfer encoding MUST also
offer something no other transfer encoding provides.
3.1.7 Security Requirements
To the greatest extent possible transfer encodings SHOULD NOT contain
known security issues. Regardless, any known security issues that
arise from the use of the transfer encoding MUST be completely and
fully described. If additional security issues come to light after
initial publication and registration they SHOULD be addressed by
publishing revised versions of the transfer encoding pecification.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
3.2 Transfer Encoding Definition Procedure
Definition of a new transfer encoding starts with the the publication
of the specification as an internet-draft. The draft MUST define the
transfer encoding precisely and completely, and MUST also provide
substantial justification for defining and standardizing a new
transfer encoding. This specification MUST then be presented to the
IESG for consideration. The IESG can
o reject the specification outright as being inappropriate for
standardization,
o assign the specification to an existing IETF working group for
further work,
o approve the formation of an IETF working group to work on the
specification in accordance with IETF procedures, or,
o accept the specification as-is for processing as an individual
standards track submission.
Transfer encoding specifications on the standards track follow normal
IETF rules for standards track documents. A transfer encoding is
considered to be defined and available for use once it is on the
standards track.
3.3 IANA Procedures for Transfer Encoding Registration
There is no need for a special procedure for registering Transfer
Encodings with the IANA. All legitimate transfer encoding
registrations MUST appear as a standards-track RFC, so it is the
IESG's responsibility to notify the IANA when a new transfer encoding
has been approved.
3.4 Location of Registered Transfer Encodings List
The list of transfer encoding registrations can be found at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/transfer-encodings
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
4. Security Considerations
Security requirements for access types are discussed in
Section 2.1.4. Security requirements for transfer encodings are
discussed in Section 3.1.7.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
5. IANA Considerations
The sole purpose of this document is to define IANA registries for
access types and transfer encodings. The IANA procedures for these
registries are specified in Section 2.4 and Section 3.3 respectively.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
6. Acknowledgements
The current authors would like to acknowledge their debt to the late
Dr. Jon Postel, whose general model of IANA registration procedures
and specific contributions shaped the predecessors of this document.
We hope that the current version is one with which he would have
agreed but, since it is impossible to verify that agreement, we have
regretfully removed his name as a co-author.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.
7.2 Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
[RFC2278] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2278, January 1998.
Authors' Addresses
Ned Freed
Sun Microsystems
3401 Centrelake Drive, Suite 410
Ontario, CA 92761-1205
USA
Phone: +1 909 457 4293
Email: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
John C Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
Email: klensin@jck.com
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
Appendix A. Changes made since RFC 2048
o Media type registration procedures are now described in a separate
document.
o The various URLs and addresses in this document have been changed
so they all refer to iana.org rather than isi.edu. Additionally,
many of the URLs have been changed to use HTTP; formerly they used
FTP.
o Much of the document has been clarified in the light of
operational experience with these procedures.
o Several of the references in this document have been updated to
refer to current versions of the relevant specifications.
o The option of assigning the task of working on a new transfer
encoding to an existing working group has been added to the list
of possible actions the IESG can take.
o Security considerations and IANA considerations sections have been
added.
o Registration of charsets for use in MIME is specified in [RFC2278]
and is no longer addressed by this document.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MIME Registration Procedures August 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Freed & Klensin Expires February 6, 2006 [Page 16]