Network Working Group J. Yao, Ed.
Internet-Draft W. Mao, Ed.
Intended status: Informational CNNIC
Expires: April 26, 2007 October 23, 2006
SMTP extension for internationalized email address
draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-02.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 April 26, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
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 peering
clients and servers while domain names are resolved by name servers
by looking up their own tables. In addition to this, email transport
protocols SMTP and ESMTP provide a negotiation mechanism through
which clients can make decisions for further processing. So
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
internationalized email address is different from the
internationalized domain name (IDN). It can be solved by exploiting
the negotiation mechanism while IDN can not use the negotiation
mechanism. So internationalized email address SHOULD be solved in
the mail transport-level using the negotiation mechanism, which is an
architecturally desirable approach. This document specifies the use
of SMTP extension for internationalized email address delivery. It
also mentions the backward compatible mechanism for downgrade
procedure, as specified in an associated specification. The protocol
proposed here is MTA-level solution which is feasible,
architecturally more elegant, and not as difficult to deploy in
relevant communities.
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Role of this specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Proposal Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Mail Transport-level Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Framework for the Internationalization Extension . . . . . 5
2.2. The Address Internationalization Service Extension . . . . 5
2.3. Extended Mailbox Address Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. The ALT-ADDRESS parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5. The Suggestion of the Value of the ALT-ADDRESS
parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6. Body Parts and SMTP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.7. Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications . . . . . . . 9
2.7.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7.2. Trace Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7.3. Mailing List Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7.4. Message Header Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7.5. POP and IMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7.6. SMTP Service Extension for DSNs . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Potential problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Impact to IRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Impact to RFC 2476 and many email related RFC . . . . . . 11
4. Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
1. Introduction
1.1. Role of this specification
An overview document [EAI-overview] specifies the requirements for,
and components of, full internationalization of electronic mail.
This document specifies an element of that work, specifically the
definition of an SMTP extension [RFC1869] for the internationalized
email address transport delivery.
1.2. Proposal Context
In order to use internationalized email addresses, we need to
internationalize both the domain part and the local part of the email
address. Domain part of the email address has been internationalized
through IDNA [RFC3490]. But the local part of the email address
still remains as non-internationalized.
The syntax of Internet email addresses is restricted to a subset of
7-bit ASCII for the domain-part, with a less-restricted subset for
the local-part. These restrictions are specified in RFC 2821
[RFC2821]. To be able to deliver internationalized email through
SMTP servers, we need to upgrade SMTP server to be able to carry the
internationalized email address. Since older SMTP servers and the
mail-reading clients and other systems that are downstream from them
MAY not be prepared to handle these extended addresses, an SMTP
extension is specified to identify and protect the addressing
mechanism.
This specification describes a change to the email transport
mechanism that permits non-ASCII address in both the envelope and
header fields of messages. The context for the change is described
in [EAI-overview] and the details of the header changes are described
in [EAI-utf8header].
1.3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED",
and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
All specialized terms used in this specification are defined in the
EAI overview [EAI-overview] or in [RFC2821] and [RFC2822]. The terms
"ASCII address", "internationalized email address", "non-ASCII
address", "i18mail address", "UTF8SMTP", "message" and "mailing list"
are used with the definitions from the EAI overview document.
This document is being discussed on the EAI mailing list. See
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
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. Mail Transport-level Protocol
2.1. 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.
If a parameter appears, the SMTP client that is conformant to
this version of this specification MUST treat the ESMTP response
as if the "UTF8SMTP" keyword did not appear.
4. An optional parameter is added to the SMTP MAIL and RCPT
commands. The parameter is named as ALT-ADDRESS. The "ALT-
ADDRESS" requires an all-ASCII address as a substitute for the
i18mail addresses that we call the primary address; you can learn
more in [EAI-overview] or [EAI-downgrading]. The value of "ALT-
ADDRESS" is set by the sender when MUA and the Submission server
have a communication.
5. No additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
6. Servers offering this extension MUST provide support for, and
announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
2.2. The Address Internationalization Service Extension
An SMTP 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" MAY appear. That string MUST be parsed
only as specified in RFC 2821, i.e., by separating the mailbox into
source route, local 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 is the final delivery MTA.
Any domain names that are to be looked up in the DNS MUST first be
processed into the form as specified in 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 3.4 of IDNA.
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
An SMTP Client that receives the UTF8SMTP extension keyword in
response to the "EHLO" command MAY transmit a mailbox name as an
internationalized string in UTF-8 form and MAY send an
internationalized mail header [EAI-utf8header]. It MAY transmit the
domain part of that string in either punycode (derived from the IDNA
process) or UTF-8 form. If it sends the domain in UTF-8 form, the
original SMTP client SHOULD first verify that the string is valid for
a domain name according to IDNA rules. As required by RFC 2821, it
MUST not attempt to parse, evaluate, or transform the local part in
any way if the UTF8SMTP SMTP extension is offered by the server. 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 body which contains internationalized mail headers
[EAI-utf8header]. Instead, it MUST either return the message to the
user as undeliverable or replace it with the alternate ASCII address.
If it is replaced, the replacement MUST be the ASCII-only address
specified with the ALT-ADDRESS parameter.[EAI-downgrading].
2.3. Extended Mailbox Address Syntax
RFC 2821, section 4.1.2, defines the syntax of a mailbox as
Mailbox = Local-part "@" Domain
Local-part = Dot-string / Quoted-string
; MAY be case-sensitive
Dot-string = Atom *("." Atom)
Atom = 1*atext
Quoted-string = DQUOTE *qcontent DQUOTE
Domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal
sub-domain = Let-dig [Ldh-str]
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]. That label MUST NOT contain
the characters "@" or ".", even though those characters can
normally be inserted into a DNS label.
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
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
permitted in "atext"; it is otherwise unrestricted.
According to the description above, define the syntax of an
internationalized email mailbox with ABNF [RFC4234] as
Mailbox = Local-part "@" Domain
Local-part = Dot-string / Quoted-string
; MAY be case-sensitive
Dot-string = Atom *("." Atom)
Atom = 1*Ucharacter
Ucharacter = atext / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
Quoted-string = DQUOTE *qcontent DQUOTE
Domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal
sub-domain = ULet-dig [ULdh-str]
ULet-dig = Let-dig / Non-ASCII
ULdh-str = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / Non-ASCII) ULet-dig
Non-ASCII = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
Where "atext", "qcontent" and "DQUOTE" are defined in [RFC2822],
"Let-dig", "Ldh-str" and "address-literal" are defined in [RFC2821]
and UTF8-2, UTF8-3 and UTF8-4 are defined in [RFC3629]. The value of
"domain" SHOULD be verified with [RFC3490]; If failed, the email
address with that domain can not be regarded as the valid email
address.
2.4. 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 "ALT-ADDRESS"
parameter.
The "ALT-ADDRESS" requires an all-ASCII address.
The ALT-ADDRESS parameter usage in the commands of "mail from" and
"rcpt to" is defined according to the definition of mail-parameters
in [RFC2821] below.
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
MAIL FROM:<reverse-path> [ SP <mail-parameters> ] <CRLF>
RCPT TO:<forward-path> [ SP <rcpt-parameters> ] <CRLF>
Mail-parameters = esmtp-param *(SP esmtp-param)
Rcpt-parameters = esmtp-param *(SP esmtp-param)
esmtp-param = esmtp-keyword ["=" esmtp-value]
esmtp-keyword = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-")
esmtp-value = 1*(%d33-60 / %d62-127)
; any CHAR excluding "=", SP, and control characters
Reverse-path = Path
Forward-path = Path
Path = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] Mailbox ">"
A-d-l = At-domain *( "," A-d-l )
; Note that this form, the so-called "source route",
; MUST BE accepted, SHOULD NOT be generated, and SHOULD be
; ignored.
At-domain = "@" domain
where the value of esmtp-keyword is "ALT-ADDRESS" and the value of
esmtp-value is all-ASCII email address, and where the domain and
Mailbox are defined at section 2.3 of this document.
The use of the ALT-ADDRESS is specified below: If some involved SMTP
servers can not support UTF8SMTP capability and if the sender has
already set the ALT-ADDRESS value, the client SMTP server will use
this address as the email address when the SMTP server does the
subsequent operations. If the ALT-ADDRESS value is not set by the
sender, the email must be bounced to the original sender. If the
email is bounced due to the incapability of supporting UTF8SMTP, the
relative server should issue the response error code "5.3.3" defined
in [RFC3463] which means that System is not capable of selected
features, permanent failure.
2.5. The Suggestion of the Value of the ALT-ADDRESS parameter
The "ALT-ADDRESS" requires an all-ASCII address. There are two
alternative ways to set ALT-ADDRESS value: one is set by the sender
using the all-ASCII address, the other is set using the transformed
email address.
Some may prefer transformed the non-ASCII address to the ASCII
Compatible Encoding(ACE) address as the value of the ALT-ADDRESS.
The big problem with applying an ACE to all local-parts is that the
sending or converting system doesn't know if there are some specific
data or instructions embedded in the address that the ACE process
would hide. Some SMTP servers may depend on these specific data or
instructions to do some operations while the local parts applied with
ACE will lose or hide these data or instructions. SMTP [RFC2821]
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
prohibits SMTP relays from converting local parts because the level
of SMTP relays' knowledge on the structure of local parts is assumed
to be zero. However, we can raise the knowledge level by supplying
additional information. Many human users' email addresses do not
have any embedded structure processed by the final delivery MTA. In
that case, the sender can specify that these email addresses are safe
to be converted in the predefined way. The final delivery SMTP
server can revert the addresses even though they are as in all ASCII
form. Unless the MUA or the submission server clearly knows that the
non-ASCII address can be safely transformed into the all-ASCII
address, the non-ASCII address should not be transformed because
transformed email address may cause some potential problems.
This document suggests that the ALT-ADDRESS is set directly by the
sender; In default, the all-ASCII address should not be gotten from
the transformation of the non-ASCII address.
2.6. Body Parts and SMTP Extensions
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, if the server advertises it
and it is appropriate, with the BODY=BINARYMIME parameter specified
in [RFC3030].
Assuming that the server advertises UTF8SMTP and 8BITMIME, and at
least one non-ASCII address, with or without ALT-ADDRESS, the precise
interpretation of these parameters on the MAIL command is:
1. Headers are in UTF-8, body parts are in ASCII.
2. Headers are in UTF-8, some or all body parts contain 8-bit line-
oriented data.
3. Headers are in UTF-8, some or all body parts contain binary data
without restriction as to line lengths or delimiters.
2.7. Additional ESMTP Changes and Clarifications
The mail transport process involves addresses ("mailboxes") and
domain names in 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 document expects UTF-8 to be
used for the entire string; when RFC 2821 specifies a domain name,
the name SHOULD be in punycode form if its raw form is non-ASCII.
The following subsections list and discuss all of the relevant cases.
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
Support and use of this extension requires support for 8BITMIME. It
means that 8BITMIME MUST be advertised by the UTF8SMTP capability
SMTP server.
2.7.1. The Initial SMTP Exchange
When an SMTP or ESMTP connection is opened, the server sends a
"banner" response consisting of the 220 reply 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 hostname form,
i.e., internationalized ones MUST be in punycode form.
2.7.2. Trace Fields
Internationalized domain names in Received fields MUST be transmitted
in the punycode form. Addresses in "for" clauses need further
examination and might be treated differently depending on
[EAI-utf8header]. The reasoning in the introductory portion of
[EAI-overview] strongly suggests that these addresses be in UTF-8
form, rather than some specialized encoding.
2.7.3. Mailing List Question
How a mixture of traditional and internationalized addresses on a
mailing list will impact message flows, error reports, and delivery
notifications in all plausible combinations of UTF8SMTP capability
and un-capability servers is discussed and specified in the
[EAI-mailing list].
2.7.4. Message Header Label
The message header label MAY be used to identify and distinguish the
i18mail message from the normal message when SMTP messages are
transmitted on wire. This issue is discussed and specified in
[EAI-utf8header].
2.7.5. POP and IMAP
While SMTP mainly takes care of the transportation of messages and
the header fields on wire, POP essentially handles the retrieval of
mail objects from the server by a client. In order to use
internationalized user names based on i18mail for the retrieval of
messages from a mail server using the POP protocol, a new capability
SHOULD be introduced following the POP3 extension mechanism
[RFC2449]. This is discussed and specified in the [EAI-pop].
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
IMAP [RFC3501] uses the traditional user name which is based on
ASCII. IMAP SHOULD be updated to support the internationalized user
names based on i18mail for the retrieval of messages from a mail
server. This is discussed and specified in the [EAI-imap].
2.7.6. SMTP Service Extension for DSNs
How to facilitate the use of SMTP Service Extension for DSNs
[RFC3461] in the work of EAI will be addressed in the [EAI-dsn].
3. Potential problems
3.1. Impact to IRI
The mailto: schema in IRI [RFC3987] MAY need to be modified when EAI
is standardized.
3.2. Impact to RFC 2476 and many email related RFC
The EAI protocols will impact on many email related RFC documents
such as Message Submission [RFC2476]. These protocols SHOULD be
considered when implementing the EAI protocol.
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 certain 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 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
widely deployed but backward-compatibility considerations require
that it continue to be supported.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to add "UTF8SMTP" to the SMTP extensions registry
with the entry pointing to this specification for its definition.
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
6. Security considerations
See the extended security considerations discussion in [EAI-overview]
7. Acknowledgements
Much of the text in the initial version of this document was derived
or copied from [Klensin-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 document. Special thanks to
those contributors for this version of document, those includes (but
not limited to) John C Klensin, Charles Lindsey, Dave Crocker, Harald
Tveit Alvestrand, Marcos Sanz, Chris Newman, Martin Duerst, Edmon
Chung, Tony Finch, Kari Hurtta.
8. Change History
[[anchor20: REMOVE THIS: This section is used for tracking the update
of this document. It may be useful to retain parts of it to
facilitate establishing dates and documents for the history of this
work.]]
8.1. draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 00
This version supercedes draft-yao-ima-smtpext-03.txt. It refines the
ABNF definiton of the internationalized email address. It represents
as the EAI working group document.
8.2. 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".
8.3. 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.
9. References
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
9.1. Normative References
[ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United
States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.
ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with
slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains
definitive for the Internet.
[EAI-downgrading]
YONEYA, Y., Ed. and K. Fujiwara, Ed., "Downgrading
mechanism for Internationalized eMail Address (IMA)",
draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-02 (work in progress),
August 2006.
[EAI-dsn] Newman, C., "SMTP extensions for DSNs", 12 2006, <http://
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-dsn-00.txt>.
[EAI-imap]
Resnick, P. and C. Newman, "Considerations for IMAP in
Conjunction with Email Address Internationalization",
draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-00 (work in progress), May 2006.
[EAI-mailing list]
Chung, E., "Mailing Lists and Internationalized Email
Addresses", June 2006.
Forthcoming
[EAI-overview]
Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", draft-ietf-eai-framework-02.txt
(work in progress), October 2006.
[EAI-pop] Newman, C., "POP3 Support for UTF-8", June 2006, <http://
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-pop-00.txt>.
[]
Yeh, J., "Transmission of Email Headers in UTF-8
Encoding", draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-01.txt (work in
progress), August 2006.
[RFC1652] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",
RFC 1652, July 1994.
[RFC1869] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869,
November 1995.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2449] Gellens, R., Newman, C., and L. Lundblade, "POP3 Extension
Mechanism", RFC 2449, November 1998.
[RFC2476] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission",
RFC 2476, December 1998.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[RFC3030] Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission
of Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 3030,
December 2000.
[RFC3454] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
December 2002.
[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.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
[RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
9.2. Informative References
[Klensin-emailaddr]
Klensin, J., "Internationalization of Email Addresses",
draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-03 (work in progress),
July 2005.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
Authors' Addresses
Jiankang YAO (editor)
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing
Phone: +86 10 58813007
Email: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Wei MAO (editor)
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing
Phone: +86 10 58813055
Email: mao@cnnic.cn
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EAI October 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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.
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Yao & Mao Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 16]
