Network Working Group                                Ned Freed
Internet Draft                        Allan Cargille, WG Chair
<draft-ietf-mailext-pipeline-00.txt>

                    SMTP Service Extension
                    for Command Pipelining

                       August 17, 1994


                     Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft.  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. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted
by other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use
Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other
than as a "working draft" or "work in progress".

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please
check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the
Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ds.internic.net,
nic.nordu.net, ftp.isi.edu, or munnari.oz.au.


1.  Abstract

This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby a
server can indicate the extent of its ability to accept
multiple commands in a single TCP send operation. Using a
single TCP send operation for multiple commands can improve
SMTP performance significantly.


2.  Introduction

Although SMTP is widely and robustly deployed, certain
extensions may nevertheless prove useful. In particular, many
parts of the Internet make use of high latency network links.
SMTP's intrinsic one command-one response structure is











Internet Draft         SMTP Pipelining             August 1994


significantly penalized by high latency links, often to the
point where the factors contributing to overall connection
time are dominated by the time spent waiting for responses to
individual commands (turnaround time).

In the best of all worlds it would be possible to simply
deploy SMTP client software that makes use of command
pipelining: batching up multiple commands into single TCP send
operations. Unfortunately, the original SMTP specification [1]
did not explicitly state that SMTP servers must support this.
As a result a non-trivial number of Internet SMTP servers
cannot adequately handle command pipelining. Flaws known to
exist in deployed servers include:

 (1)   Connection handoff and buffer flushes in the middle of
       the SMTP dialogue.  Creation of server processes for
       incoming SMTP connections is a useful, obvious, and
       harmless implementation technique. However, some SMTP
       servers defer process forking and connection handoff
       until some intermediate point in the SMTP dialogue.
       When this is done material read from the TCP connection
       and kept in process buffers can be lost.

 (2)   Flushing the TCP input buffer when an SMTP command
       fails. SMTP commands often fail but there is no reason
       to flush the TCP input buffer when this happens.
       Nevertheless, some SMTP servers do this.

 (3)   Improper processing and promulgation of SMTP command
       failures. For example, some SMTP servers will refuse to
       accept a DATA command if the last RCPT TO command
       fails, paying no attention to the success or failure of
       prior RCPT TO command results. Other servers will
       accept a DATA command even when all previous RCPT TO
       commands have failed. Although it is possible to
       accomodate this sort of behavior in a client that
       employs command pipelining, it does complicate the
       construction of the client unnecessarily.

This memo uses the mechanism described in [2] to define an
extension to the SMTP service whereby an SMTP server can
declare that it is capable of handling pipelined commands. The
SMTP client can then check for this declaration and use
pipelining only when the server declares itself capable of
handling it.





                    Expires February 1994             [Page 2]


Internet Draft         SMTP Pipelining             August 1994


3.  Framework for the Command Pipelining Extension

The Command Pipelining extension is defined as follows:

 (1)   the name of the SMTP service extension is Pipelining;

 (2)   the EHLO keyword value associated with the extension is
       PIPELINING;

 (3)   no parameter is used with the PIPELINING EHLO keyword;

 (4)   no additional parameters are added to either the MAIL
       FROM or RCPT TO commands.

 (5)   no additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension;
       and,

 (6)   the next section specifies how support for the
       extension affects the behavior of a server and client
       SMTP.


4.  The Pipelining Service Extension

When a client SMTP wishes to employ command pipelining, it
first issues the EHLO command to the server SMTP. If the
server SMTP responds with code 250 to the EHLO command, and
the response includes the EHLO keyword value PIPELINING, then
the server SMTP has indicated that it can accomodate SMTP
command pipelining.


4.1.  Client use of pipelining

Once the client SMTP has confirmed that support exists for the
pipelining extension, the client SMTP may then elect to
transmit groups of SMTP commands in batches without waiting
for a response to each individual command. In particular, the
commands RSET, MAIL FROM, SEND FROM, SOML FROM, SAML FROM, and
RCPT TO can all appear anywhere in a pipelined command group.
The EHLO, DATA, VRFY, EXPN, TURN, QUIT, and NOOP commands can
only appear as the last command in a group since their success
or failure produces a change of state which the client SMTP
must accomodate. (NOOP is included in this group so it can be
used as a synchronization point.)





                    Expires February 1994             [Page 3]


Internet Draft         SMTP Pipelining             August 1994


Additional commands added by other SMTP extensions may only
appear as the last command in a group unless otherwise
specified by the extensions that define the commands.

Client SMTP implementations that employ pipelining MUST check
all statuses associated with each command in the group. For
example, if none of the RCPT TO recipient addresses were
accepted the client must then check the response to the DATA
command. If the DATA command was properly rejected the client
SMTP can just issue RSET, but if the DATA command was accepted
the client SMTP should send a single dot.

Command status MUST be coordinated with responses by counting
each separate response and correlating that count with the
number of commands known to have been issued. Multiline
responses MUST be supported. Matching on the basis of either
the error code value or associated text is expressly
forbidden.

Client SMTP implementations MAY elect to operate in a
nonblocking fashion, processing server responses immediately
upon receipt. If nonblocking operation is not supported,
however, client SMTP implementations MUST also check the TCP
window size and make sure that each group of commands fits
entirely within the window. The window size is usually, but
not always, 4K octets. Failure to perform this check can lead
to deadlock conditions.


4.2.  Server support of pipelining

A server SMTP implementation that offers the pipelining
extension:

 (1)   MUST NOT flush or otherwise lose the contents of the
       TCP input buffer under any circumstances whatsoever.

 (2)   SHOULD issue a positive response to the DATA command if
       and only if one or more valid RCPT TO addresses have
       been previously received.

 (3)   MUST NOT, after issuing a positive response to a DATA
       command with no valid recipients and subsequently
       receiving an empty message, send any message whatsoever
       to anyone.





                    Expires February 1994             [Page 4]


Internet Draft         SMTP Pipelining             August 1994


 (4)   SHOULD elect to store command responses to RSET, MAIL
       FROM, SEND FROM, SOML FROM, SAML FROM, and RCPT TO in
       an internal buffer so they can sent as a unit.

 (5)   MUST NOT confuse responses to multiple commands with
       multiline responses. Each command requires one or more
       lines of response, the last line not containing a dash
       between the response code and the response string.

 (6)   MUST NOT buffer responses to EHLO, DATA, VRFY, EXPN,
       TURN, QUIT, and NOOP.

 (7)   MUST NOT buffer responses to unrecognized commands.

 (8)   MUST send all pending responses immediately whenever
       the local TCP input buffer is emptied.

 (9)   MUST NOT make assumptions about commands that are yet
       to be received.

 (10)  SHOULD issue response text that indicates, either
       implicitly or explicitly, what command the response
       matches.

The overriding intent of these server requirements is to make
it as easy as possible for servers to conform to these
pipelining extensions.

5.  Examples

Consider the following SMTP dialogue that does not use
pipelining:

S: <wait for open connection>
C: <open connection to server>
S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
C: HELO dbc.mtview.ca.us
S: 250 innosoft.com
C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
C: RCPT TO:<ned@innosoft.com>
S: 250 recipient <ned@innosoft.com> OK
C: RCPT TO:<dan@innosoft.com>
S: 250 recipient <dan@innosoft.com> OK
C: RCPT TO:<kvc@innosoft.com>





                    Expires February 1994             [Page 5]


Internet Draft         SMTP Pipelining             August 1994


S: 250 recipient <kvc@innosoft.com> OK
C: DATA
S: 354 enter mail, end with line containing only "."
 ...
C: .
S: 250 message sent
C: QUIT
S: 250 goodbye

The client waits for a server response a total of 9 times in
this simple example. But if pipelining is employed the
following dialogue is possible:

S: <wait for open connection>
C: <open connection to server>
S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
C: EHLO dbc.mtview.ca.us
S: 250-innosoft.com
S: 250 PIPELINING
C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
C: RCPT TO:<ned@innosoft.com>
C: RCPT TO:<dan@innosoft.com>
C: RCPT TO:<kvc@innosoft.com>
C: DATA
S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
S: 250 recipient <ned@innosoft.com> OK
S: 250 recipient <dan@innosoft.com> OK
S: 250 recipient <kvc@innosoft.com> OK
S: 354 enter mail, end with line containing only "."
 ...
C: .
C: QUIT
S: 250 message sent
S: 250 goodbye

The total number of turnarounds has been reduced from 9 to 4.

The next example illustrates one possible form of behavior
when pipelining is used and all recipients are rejected:

S: <wait for open connection>
C: <open connection to server>
S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
C: EHLO dbc.mtview.ca.us
S: 250-innosoft.com





                    Expires February 1994             [Page 6]


Internet Draft         SMTP Pipelining             August 1994


S: 250 PIPELINING
C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
C: RCPT TO:<nsb@thumper.bellcore.com>
C: RCPT TO:<galvin@tis.com>
C: DATA
S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
S: 550 remote mail to <nsb@thumper.bellore.com> not allowed
S: 550 remote mail to <galvin@tis.com> not allowed
S: 550 no valid recipients given
C: QUIT
S: 250 goodbye

The client SMTP waits for the server 4 times here as well. If
the server SMTP does not check for at least one valid
recipient prior to accepting the DATA command, the following
dialogue would result:

S: <wait for open connection>
C: <open connection to server>
S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
C: EHLO dbc.mtview.ca.us
S: 250-innosoft.com
S: 250 PIPELINING
C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
C: RCPT TO:<nsb@thumper.bellcore.com>
C: RCPT TO:<galvin@tis.com>
C: DATA
S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
S: 550 remote mail to <nsb@thumper.bellore.com> not allowed
S: 550 remote mail to <galvin@tis.com> not allowed
S: 354 enter mail, end with line containing only "."
C: .
C: QUIT
S: 550 no valid recipients
S: 250 goodbye

6.  Security Considerations

This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not believed
to raise any security issues not endemic in electronic mail
and present in fully conforming implementations of [1].









                    Expires February 1994             [Page 7]


Internet Draft         SMTP Pipelining             August 1994


7.  Acknowledgements

This document is based on the SMTP service extension model
presented in RFC 1425. Marshall Rose's description of SMTP
command pipelining in his book "The Internet Message" also
served as a source of inspiration for this extension.


8.  References

[1]  J.B. Postel.  Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. Request for
     Comments 821, (August, 1982).

[2]  J.C. Klensin, N. Freed, M.T. Rose, E.A. Stefferud,
     D.H. Crocker.  SMTP Service Extensions. Request for
     Comments 1651, (July, 1994).


9.  Author Address

Ned Freed
Innosoft International, Inc.
1050 East Garvey Avenue South
West Covina, CA 91790
USA
 tel: +1 818 919 3600           fax: +1 818 919 3614
 email: ned@innosoft.com























                    Expires February 1994             [Page 8]