Network Working Group                                        J. Yao, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               W. Mao, Ed.
Intended status: Experimental                                      CNNIC
Expires: October 11, 2007                                  April 9, 2007

           SMTP extension for internationalized email address

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


   This document specifies the use of SMTP extension for
   internationalized email address delivery.  Communication with systems
   that do not implement this specification is specified in another

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Role of this specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Proposal Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Mail Transport-level Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Framework for the Internationalization Extension . . . . .  4
     2.2.  The UTF8SMTP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Extended Mailbox Address Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.4.  The ALT-ADDRESS parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.5.  Using 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.  Message Retry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.7.3.  Trace Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.  Issues with Other Parts of the Email System  . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.1.  LMTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.2.  SMTP Service Extension for DSNs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  POP and IMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Potential problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  Impact many email related RFC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Implementation Advice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.2.  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.3.  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.4.  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.5.  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     9.6.  draft-ietf-eai-smtpext: Version 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

1.  Introduction

   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
   protocol ESMTP[RFC1869] provide a negotiation mechanism through which
   clients can make decisions for further processing; please see more in
   [EAI-framework].  Email addresses can exploit the SMTP extension
   negotiation mechanism while Internationalized Domain Name(IDN) does
   not have such a facility.  This is also more desirable
   architecturally.  This document specifies an SMTP extension to permit
   internationalized email addresses in envelopes, and UTF-8 in headers.
   The protocol described here is an MTA solution which is feasible,
   architecturally elegant, and not difficult to deploy.

1.1.  Role of this specification

   An framework document [EAI-framework] specifies the requirements for,
   and components of, full internationalization of electronic mail.  To
   understand and implement this specification, understanding the
   context presented in [EAI-framework] is necessary.

   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

   This specification describes a change to the email transport
   mechanism that permits non-ASCII characters in both the envelope and
   header fields of messages while the specification in [EAI-utf8header]
   specifies the details of how and where non-ASCII characters are
   permitted in the header fields of messages.  The context for the
   change is described in [EAI-framework].

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 framework [EAI-framework] or in [RFC2821] and [RFC2822].  The
   terms "ASCII address", "internationalized email address", "non-ASCII
   address", "i18mail address", "UTF8SMTP", "message" and "mailing list"

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

   are used with the definitions from the [EAI-framework] document.

   This document defines only those ABNF [RFC4234] 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 upgrade
   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
   documents under the same names.

   [[anchor4: RFC EDITOR'S NOTE: The following text should be deleted
   before publication.]]  This document is being discussed on the EAI
   mailing list.  See for
   information about subscribing.  The list's archive is at

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
   2.  The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
   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, that is, clients MUST behave
       as if the parameters do not appear.  If a server includes
       UTF8SMTP in its EHLO response, it MUST be fully compliant with
       this version of this specification.
   4.  One optional parameter, ALT-ADDRESS, is added to the SMTP MAIL
       and RCPT commands.  ALT-ADDRESS specifies an all-ASCII address
       which can be used as a substitute for the i18mail addresses that
       we call the primary address; you can learn more in
       [EAI-framework] or [EAI-downgrading].
   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].
   7.  The reverse-path and forward-path of SMTP MAIL and RCPT commands
       are extended to allow UTF-8 characters in the specified mailbox
   8.  The mail data is extended on compliance with [EAI-utf8header]

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

   9.  The maximum length of a MAIL FROM and RCPT TO command lines is
       increased by 396 characters by the possible addition of the ALT-
       ADDRESS keyword and value.

2.2.  The UTF8SMTP 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 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

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

   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 UTF-8 header
   [EAI-utf8header].  It MAY transmit the domain part of that string in
   either the form of ACE labels specified in [RFC3490] or UTF-8 form.
   If it sends the domain in UTF-8 form, the Submission SMTP client that
   first injects the message into the Internet SHOULD first verify that
   the string is valid for a domain name according to IDNA rules.  The
   presence of the UTF8SMTP extension does not change the requirement of
   RFC 2821 that servers MUST not attempt to parse, evaluate, or
   transform the local part in any way.  We say that an ASCII address is
   "available" for a forwarding path or return path if the address is
   all-ASCII or an ALT-ADDRESS parameter is specified for the path.  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 which contains internationalized mail headers
   [EAI-utf8header] at any level within it MIME structure.  Instead, an
   SMTP client other than the Submission MTA MUST make one of the
   following three choices:
   1.  Reject or return the message as undeliverable.
   2.  Find an alternate route to the destination that permits UTF8SMTP.
   3.  If and only if an ASCII address is available for the return path
       and one or more of the specific forwarding paths being attempted,
       downgrade the message to an all-ASCII form as specified in

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

   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.  Submission servers [RFC4409] are
   permitted to perform a broader range of changes to allow the
   internationalized email address.  The older SMTP servers, the mail-
   reading clients and other systems that are downstream from them might
   not be prepared to handle these extended addresses.  If a SMTP server
   does not support the UTF8SMTP extension, then the SMTP client MUST
   NOT, under any circumstances, attempt to send UTF8SMTP message to
   this server or attempt to use UTF-8 characters of the MAIL FROM or
   RCPT TO commands.

2.3.  Extended Mailbox Address Syntax

   RFC 2821, section 4.1.2, defines the syntax of a mailbox entirely in
   terms of ASCII characters, using the production for "Mailbox" and
   those 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, define the syntax of an
   internationalized email mailbox with ABNF [RFC4234] as

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

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

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

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

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

         ucharacter = atext / UTF8-xtra-char
                   ; Replace character in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2
                   ; atext is defined in RFC 2822

         uQuoted-string = DQUOTE *uqcontent DQUOTE
                   ; Replace Quoted-string in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2
                   ; DQUOTE is Double Quote defined in RFC 4234

         uqcontent = qcontent / UTF8-xtra-char
                   ; qcontent is defined in RFC 2822, section 3.2.5

         uDomain = (sub-udomain 1*("." sub-udomain)) / address-literal
                   ; Replace Domain in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2
                   ; address-literal is defined in RFC2821 section 4.1.2

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

         uLet-dig = Let-dig / UTF8-xtra-char
                   ; Let-dig is defined in RFC 2821, section 4.1.3

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

         UTF8-xtra-char = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
               ; UTF8-2, UTF8-3 and UTF8-4 are defined in RFC 3629

   The value of "udomain" SHOULD be verified with IDNA [RFC3490]; If
   failed, the email address with that udomain can not be regarded as
   the valid email address.

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

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 esmtp-keyword "ALT-
   ADDRESS", which specifies an alternate all-ASCII address which 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).

   Based on the definition of mail-parameters in [RFC2821], the ALT-
   ADDRESS parameter usage in the commands of "mail from" and "rcpt to"
   is defined below.

        "MAIL FROM:" SP <uReverse-path> [ SP <ALT-ADDRESS-parameter> ]
                   ; Update mail command in RFC 2821, section 3.3
                   ; The syntax for "esmtp-value" in RFC2821
                   ; does not allow "=", SP and control characters.
                   ; Therefore ALT-ADDRESS-paramater is extended.

            "RCPT TO:" SP <uForward-path> [ SP <rcpt-parameters> ]
               ; Update rcpt command in RFC 2821, section 3.3

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

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

        uPath = "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] uMailbox ">"
               ; Replace Path in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2
                   ; A-d-l is defined in RFC 2821, section 4.1.2
                   ; uMailbox is defined in section 2.3 of this document

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

           ; xtext is defined in RFC 3461, section 4.2

   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.

2.5.  Using the ALT-ADDRESS parameter

   A message containing non-ASCII envelope addresses or header fields
   MUST NOT be sent to an SMTP server which does not support UTF8SMTP.
   Such a message MAY be rejected due to lack of the ALT-ADDRESS as

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

   discussed in section 2.2 of this document.

   When messages are rejected because they require UTF8SMTP, response
   code "550" is used, defined in [RFC2821], meaning "mailbox
   unavailable".  If enhanced mail system status codes [RFC3463] is
   used, the response code should be "5.6.x" [SMTP-codes], meaning that
   "alt-address is required but not specified".

   [[anchor8: REMOVE THIS: IANA please assign the proper error codes for

2.6.  Body Parts and SMTP Extensions

   Since there is no ESMTP parameter which tells whether the message is
   UTF8SMTP message, SMTP server needs to parse all message header
   fields and MIME header fields in the message body to discover which
   messages are UTF8SMTP.  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].  This document does not modify the
   intent of BODY=BINARYMIME that text body parts and headers must still
   be handled in a line-oriented way.

   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 of "No 'Body' parameter", "BODY=
   8BITMIME", and "BODY= BINARYMIME" of the MAIL command is:
   1.  For No "Body" parameter, headers are in UTF-8, body parts are in
   2.  For BODY=8BITMIME parameter, headers are in UTF-8, some or all
       body parts contain 8-bit line-oriented data.
   3.  For BODY=BINARYMIME parameter, 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 the form of ACE labels if its raw form is non-

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007


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

   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 normally sends
   a "greeting" 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 the hostname form,
   i.e., internationalized ones MUST be in the form of ACE labels.

2.7.2.  Message Retry

   An MSA or MTA may encounter a server that doesn't support UTF8SMTP
   while relaying a message that requires such support.  The selection
   of submission servers is presumably under the control of the sender's
   client, while the selection of potential intermediate relays is under
   the control of the administration of the final delivery server.
   Hence, there is a presumption, at least when the recipient address is
   non-ASCII, that the delivery path servers normally support UTF8SMTP
   (if the sender's client or MSA didn't support UTF8SMTP, the message
   would not have been accepted for delivery in the first place).  Thus,
   a lack of UTF8SMTP support is likely to be a temporary situation.  It
   is suggested that an alternate MX be tried, and/or the message is
   requeued for a later attempt, rather than immediately downgrading or
   rejecting.  If the message is requeued, the total elapsed time before
   rejecting or downgrading SHOULD be smaller than the value used for
   other SMTP error conditions such as host unreachable or persistent
   '4xx' response codes.

   An example of such an algorithm:

   If a message requires UTF8SMTP but the contacted server doesn't
   support it, treat this as a temporary failure if the message has been
   queued for less than 24 hours, unless the return-path is non-ASCII
   and the forward path is all-ASCII.  Normal temporary failure action
   is taken, such as, additional address records of the current MX
   record are attempted, then additional MX records are attempted, then
   the message is requeued with increasing back-off timers.

   If message has been queued for less than 24 hours and the message

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

   requires UTF8SMTP support but the contact server doesn't offer this,
   the following diagram describes some situations:

          return-path   forward-path   action
          -----------   ------------   ------
          ASCII         ASCII          reject or downgrade
          non-ASCII     non-ASCII      temp fail
          ASCII         non-ASCII      temp fail
          non-ASCII     ASCII          reject or downgrade

   This alternate-MX-or-retry-later technique SHOULD NOT be used when
   the message's return path is a non-ASCII address and the specific
   forward path being attempted is an ASCII address (because the
   implication that the delivery path normally supports UTF8SMTP does
   not hold in this case).

2.7.3.  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
   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 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, we update 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 the section 4.4 of [RFC2821]
       ; uReverse-path is defined in Section 2.3

   uTime-stamp-line = "Received:" FWS uStamp <CRLF>
           ; Replaces Time-stamp-line in the section 4.4 of [RFC2821]

   uStamp = From-domain By-domain uOpt-info ";"  FWS date-time
           ; Replaces Stamp in the section 4.4 of [RFC2821]

   uOpt-info = [Via] [With] [ID] [uFor]
           ; Replaces Opt-info in the section 4.4 of [RFC2821]
           ; [With]'s protocl value will allow UTF8SMTP value

   uFor = "FOR" FWS 1*( uPath / uMailbox ) CFWS
           ; Replaces For in the section 4.4 of [RFC2821]
           ; uPath is defined in section 2.4 of this document

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

       ; uMailbox is defined in section 2.3 of this document

   Except in the 'uFor' and 'uReverse-path' line where non-ASCII domain
   name 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 is UTF8SMTP when this extension is used.  More
   information is in the "IANA Considerations" section of this document,

3.  Issues with Other Parts of the Email System

3.1.  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 to be
   updated to deal with these situations.

3.2.  SMTP Service Extension for DSNs

   The existing draft standard Delivery status notifications
   (DSNs)[RFC3461] is presently limited to US-ASCII text in the machine
   readable portions of the protocol.  "International Delivery and
   Disposition Notifications" [EAI-dsn] adds a new address type for
   international email addresses so an original recipient address with
   non-US-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] including
   support for the ORCPT parameter.

3.3.  POP and IMAP

   The [EAI-framework] has introduced two documents [EAI-pop] and
   [EAI-imap] to how to use internationalized user names based on UTF-8
   characters for the retrieval of messages from a mail server.

4.  Potential problems

4.1.  Impact many email related RFC

   Internationalized email has implications for all processes and
   protocols which examine, handle, generate, or otherwise deal with
   mail.  In particular, address parsing or validity checks, message
   parsing or handling, etc.

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

5.  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
   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.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to add "UTF8SMTP" to the SMTP extensions registry
   with the entry pointing to this specification for its definition.

   IANA is requested to assign the proper error codes "5.6.x" for this
   specification based on [SMTP-codes].

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

  WITH protocol types  Description                             Reference
  -------------------  ----------------------------            ---------
  UTF8SMTP             UTF8SMTP with Service Extensions        [RFCxxxx]

   [[anchor20: REMOVE THIS: where RFCxxxx represents the future RFC N0.
   of this document.  When this document is published as RFC and
   assigned with a RFC No., "xxxx" should be replaced with 4-digits

7.  Security considerations

   See the extended security considerations discussion in

8.  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.

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

   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, Randall Gellens, Frank Ellermann.  Of
   course, none of the individuals are necessarily responsible for the
   combination of ideas represented here.

9.  Change History

   [[anchor23: 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

9.1.  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.

9.2.  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".

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

   o  Upgraded to reflect the recent discussion of the
      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.

9.4.  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.

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

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

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

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

   o  Refine the abstract.
   o  Delete "The Suggestion of the Value of the ALT-ADDRESS parameter"
   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"

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [ASCII]    Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
              October 1969.

              Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
              Internationalized Email", draft-ietf-eai-framework-05.txt
              (work in progress), 2 2007.

              Yeh, J., "Transmission of Email Headers in UTF-8
              Encoding", draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-05.txt (work in
              progress), April 2007.

   [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.
              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

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

              Mechanism", RFC 2449, November 1998.

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

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

   [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.

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

   [RFC3987]  Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.

   [RFC4234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

10.2.  Informative References

              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",
              draft-ietf-eai-dsn-00.txt (work in progress), 1 2007.


Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

              Resnick, P. and C. Newman, "Considerations for IMAP in
              Conjunction with Email Address Internationalization",
              draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-01 (work in progress),
              March 2007.

   [EAI-mailing list]
              Gellens, R. and E. Chung, "Mailing Lists and
              Internationalized Email Addresses",
              draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-01.txt (work in progress),
              January 2007.

   [EAI-pop]  Newman, C., "POP3 Support for UTF-8",
              draft-ietf-eai-pop-01.txt (work in progress),
              January 2007.

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

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

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

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

              4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.

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

              KLensin, J., "An IANA Registry for Extended SMTP Status
              Codes", draft-klensin-smtp-code-registry-00 (work in
              progress), April 2007.

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

Authors' Addresses

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

   Phone: +86 10 58813007

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

   Phone: +86 10 58813055

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                     EAI                        April 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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

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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Yao & Mao               Expires October 11, 2007               [Page 19]