[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 rfc2298                               
Receipt Working Group                                       Roger Fajman
Internet Draft                             National Institutes of Health
Expires: 10 April 1996                                    5 October 1995




                    An Extensible Message Format
               for Message Disposition Notifications

                   draft-ietf-receipt-mdn-00.txt


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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as refer-
ence material or to cite them other than as "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 ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

Any questions, comments, and reports of defects or ambiguities in
this specification may be sent to the mailing list for the RECEIPT
working group of the IETF, using the address <receipt@cs.utk.edu>.
Requests to subscribe to the mailing list should be addressed to
<receipt-request@cs.utk.edu>. Implementors of this specification are
encouraged to subscribe to the mailing list, so that they will
quickly be informed of any problems which might hinder inter-
operability.


Abstract

This memo defines a MIME content-type that may be used by a mail
user agent (UA) or electronic mail gateway to report the disposition
of a message after it has been sucessfully delivered to a recipient.
This content-type is intended to be machine-processable.  Additional
message headers are also defined to permit Message Disposition
Notifications (MDNs) to be requested by the sender of a message.
The purpose is to extend Internet Mail to support functionality
often found in other messaging systems, such as X.400 and the
proprietary "LAN-based" systems, and often referred to as "read
receipts," "acknowledgements," or "receipt notifications."  The
intention is to do this while respecting the privacy concerns that


Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 1

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


have often been expressed when such functions have been discussed in
the past.

Because many messages are sent between the Internet and other
messaging systems (such as X.400 or the proprietary "LAN-based"
systems), the MDN protocol is designed to be useful in a multi-
protocol messaging environment.  To this end, the protocol described
in this memo provides for the carriage of "foreign" addresses, in
addition to those normally used in Internet mail.  Additional
attributes may also be defined to support "tunneling" of foreign
notifications through Internet mail.


1.  Introduction

This memo defines a MIME [1] content-type for message disposition
notifications (MDNs).  An MDN can be used to notify the sender of a
message of any of several conditions that may occur after successful
delivery, such as display of the message contents, printing of the
message, deletion (without display) of the message, or the
recipient's refusal to provide MDNs.  The
"message/disposition-notification" content-type defined herein is
intended for use within the framework of the "multipart/report"
content type defined in [2].

This memo defines the format of the notifications and the RFC 822
headers used to request them.


1.1 Purposes

The MDNs defined in this memo are expected to serve several pur-
poses:

(a)  Inform human beings of the disposition of messages after
     succcessful delivery, in a manner which is largely independent
     of human language;

(b)  Allow mail user agents to keep track of the disposition of
     messages sent, by associating returned MDNs with earlier
     message transmissions;

(c)  Convey disposition notification requests and disposition
     notifications between Internet Mail and "foreign" mail systems
     via a gateway;

(d)  Allow "foreign" notifications to be tunneled through a MIME-
     capable message system and back into the original messaging
     system that issued the original notification, or even to a
     third messaging system;


Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 2

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


(e)  Allow language-independent, yet reasonably precise, indications
     of the disposition of a message to be delivered.


1.2 Requirements

These purposes place the following constraints on the notification
protocol:

(a)  It must be readable by humans, as well as being machine-
     parsable.

(b)  It must provide enough information to allow message senders (or
     the user agents) to unambiguously associate an MDN with the
     message that was sent and the original recipient address for
     which the MDN is issued (if such information is available),
     even if the message was forwarded to another recipient address.

(c)  It must also be able to describe the disposition of a message
     independent of any particular human language or of the ter-
     minology of any particular mail system.


2.  Requesting MDNs

A request that the receiving user agent issue message disposition
notifications is made by placing a Disposition-notification-to
header into the message.  The syntax of the header using the ABNF of
RFC 822 [5] is

     mdn-request-header = "Disposition-notification-to" ":" address

The address token is as specified in RFC 822 [5].

Note that the presence of a Disposition-notification-to header in a
message is merely a request for an MDN.  The recipients' user agents
are always free to silently ignore such a request.  Alternatively,
an explicit denial of the request for information about the disposi-
tion of the message may be sent using the "denied" disposition in an
MDN.

One and only one MDN may be issued on behalf of each particular
recipient by their user agent.  That is, once an MDN has been issued
on behalf of a recipient, no further MDNs may be issued on behalf of
that recipient, even if another disposition is performed on the
message.  If a message is forwarded, a "forwarded" MDN may been
issued for the recipient doing the forwarding and the recipient of
the forwarded message may also cause an MDN to be generated.




Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 3

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


While Internet standards normally do not specify the behavior of
user interfaces, it is strongly recommended that the user agent
obtain the user's consent before sending an MDN.  This consent could
be obtained for each message through some sort of prompt or dialog
box, or globally through the user's setting of a preference.  The
user might also indicate globally that MDNs are never to be sent or
that a "denied" MDN is always sent in response to a request for an
MDN.

A message that contains a Disposition-notification-to header SHOULD
also contain a Message-ID header as specified in RFC 822 [5].  This
will permit automatic correlation of MDNs with original messages by
user agents.

If it desired to request message disposition notifications for some
recipients and not others, two copies of the message should be sent,
one with an Disposition-notification-to header and one without.  The
other headers of the message (To, cc, bcc, etc.) are the same in
both copies.  The recipients in the respective message envelopes
determine for whom message disposition notifications are requested
and for whom they are not.  If desired, the Message-ID header may be
the same in both copies of the message.

Since electronic mail addresses may be rewritten while the message
is in transit, it is useful for the original recipient address to be
made available by the delivering MTA.  The MTA may be able to obtain
this information from the ORCPT parameter of the SMTP MAIL FROM
command, as defined in [4].  If this information is available, the
delivering MTA may insert an Original-recipient header into the
message.  The syntax of this header using the ABNF of RFC 822 [5] is
as follows

     original-recipient-header =
          "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

The address-type and generic-address token are as as specified in
the description of the Original-recipient field in section 3.2.3.


3.  Format of a Message Disposition Notification

A message disposition notification is a MIME message with a top-
level content-type of multipart/report (defined in [2]).  When a
multipart/report content is used to transmit an MDN:

(a)  The report-type parameter of the multipart/report content is
     "disposition-notification".

(b)  The first component of the multipart/report contains a human-
     readable explanation of the MDN, as described in [2].


Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 4

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


(c)  The second component of the multipart/report is of content-type
     message/disposition-notification, described in section 3.1 of
     this document.

(d)  If the original message or a portion of the message is to be
     returned to the sender, it appears as the third component of
     the multipart/report.

     NOTE:  For message dispostion notifications gatewayed from
     foreign systems, the headers of the original message may not be
     available.  In this case the third component of the MDN may be
     omitted, or it may contain "simulated" RFC 822 headers which
     contain equivalent information.  In particular, it is very
     desirable to preserve the subject and date fields from the
     original message.

The MDN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the
transport envelope) to the address from the Disposition-
notification-to header which from the original message for which the
MDN was generated.

The From field of the message header of the MDN MUST contain the
address of the person on whose behalf the message disposition
notification is being issued.

The envelope sender address of the MDN should be the same as the
address in the From header.  A message disposition notification MUST
NOT itself request an MDN.  That is, it MUST NOT contain a
Disposition-notification-to header.

The Message-ID header (if present) for an MDN MUST be different from
the Message-ID of the message for which the MDN is being issued.

A particular MDN describes the disposition of exactly one message
for exactly one recipient.  Multiple MDNs may be generated as a
result of one message submission, one per recipient.  However, due
to various circumstances, MDNs may not be generated for some
recipients for which MDNs were requested.


3.1 The message/disposition-notification content-type

The message/disposition-notification content-type is defined as
follows:








Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 5

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


     MIME type name:                message
     MIME subtype name:             disposition-notification
     Optional parameters:           none
     Encoding considerations:       "7bit" encoding is sufficient and
                                    MUST be used to maintain readability
                                    when viewed by non-MIME mail
                                    readers.
     Security considerations:       discussed in section 5 of this memo.

The message/disposition-notification report type for use in the
multipart/report is "disposition-notification".

The body of a message/delivery-status consists of one or more
"fields" formatted according to the ABNF of RFC 822 header "fields"
(see [5]).  Using the ABNF of RFC 822, the syntax of the
message/disposition-notification content is as follows:

     disposition-notification-content = reporting-ua-field CRLF
          [ mdn-gateway-field CRLF ]
          [ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
          final-recipient-field CRLF
          [ original-message-id-field CRLF ]
          disposition-field CRLF
          *( extension-field CRLF)


3.1.1 General conventions for fields

Since these fields are defined according to the rules of RFC 822,
the same conventions for continuation lines and comments apply.
Notification fields may be continued onto multiple lines by begin-
ning each additional line with a SPACE or HTAB.  Text which appears
in parentheses is considered a comment and not part of the contents
of that notification field.  Field names are case-insensitive, so
the names of notification fields may be spelled in any combination
of upper and lower case letters.  Comments in notification fields
may use the "encoded-word" construct defined in [6].


3.1.2 "*-type" subfields

Several fields consist of a "-type" subfield, followed by a semi-
colon, followed by "*text".  For these fields, the keyword used in
the address-type, UA-type, or MTA-type subfield indicates the
expected format of the address, UA-name, or MTA-name that follows.

The "-type" subfields are defined as follows:





Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 6

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


(a)  An "address-type" specifies the format of a mailbox address.
     For example, Internet mail addresses use the "rfc822" address-
     type.

         address-type = atom

(b)  An "UA-name-type" specifies the format of a user agent name.
     For example, for a Eudora user agent on an Internet host, the
     UA name might be the domain name of that host, and a UA-name-
     type of "Eudora" might be used.

         ua-name-type = atom

(c)  An "MTA-name-type" specifies the format of a mail transfer
     agent name.  For example, for an SMTP server on an Internet
     host, the MTA name is the domain name of that host, and the
     "dns" MTA-name-type is used.

         mta-name-type = atom

Values for address-type, ua-name-type, and mta-name-type are case-
insensitive.  Thus address-type values of "RFC822" and "rfc822" are
equivalent.

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) will maintain a
registry of address-type, ua-name-type, and mta-name-type values,
along with descriptions of the meanings of each, or a reference to a
one or more specifications that provide such descriptions.  (The
"rfc822" address-type is defined in [4].) Registration forms for
address-type and mta-name-type appear in [8].  A registration form
for ua-name-type appears in this document.

IANA will not accept registrations for any address-type name that
begins with "X-".  These type names are reserved for experimental
use.


3.1.3 Lexical tokens imported from RFC 822

The following lexical tokens, defined in RFC 822 [5], are used in
the ABNF grammar for MDNs:  addr-spec, atom, CHAR, comment, CR,
CRLF, DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text.  The date-time
lexical token is defined in RFC 1123 [7].









Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 7

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


3.2 Message/disposition-notification Fields

3.2.1 The Reporting-UA field

     reporting-ua-field = "Reporting-UA" ":" ua-name-type ";" ua-name

     ua-name = *text

The Reporting-UA field is defined as follows:

A MDN describes the disposition of a message after it has been
delivered a recipient.  In all cases, the Reporting-UA is the UA
that performed the disposition described in the MDN.  This field is
required.


3.2.2 The MDN-Gateway field

The MDN-Gateway field indicates the name of the gateway or MTA that
translated a foreign (non-Internet) message disposition notification
into this MDN.  This field MUST appear in any MDN which was trans-
lated by a gateway from a foreign system into MDN format, and MUST
NOT appear otherwise.

     mdn-gateway-field = "MDN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

For gateways into Internet mail, the MTA-name-type will normally be
"smtp", and the mta-name will be the Internet domain name of the
gateway.


3.2.3 Original-Recipient field

The Original-Recipient field indicates the original recipient
address as specified by the sender of the message for which the MDN
is being issued.  For Internet Mail messages the value of the
Original-Recipient field is obtained from the Original-Recipient
header from the message for which the MDN is being generated.  If
there is no Original-Recipient header in the message, then the
Original-Recipient field MUST be omitted.

     original-recipient-field =
          "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

     generic-address = *text

The address-type field indicates the type of the original recipient
address.  If the message originated within the Internet, the
address-type field field will normally be "rfc822", and the address
will be according to the syntax specified in [5].  The value "un-


Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 8

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


known" should be used if the Reporting UA cannot determine the type
of the original recipient address from the message envelope.  This
address is the same as that provided by the sender and can be used
to automatically correlate MDN reports and message transactions.


3.3.4 Final-Recipient field

The Final-Recipient field indicates the recipient for which the MDN
is being issued.  This field MUST be present.

The syntax of the field is as follows:

     final-recipient-field =
          "Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

The generic-address subfield of the Final-Recipient field MUST
contain the mailbox address of the recipient (from the From header)
as it was when the message was accepted for delivery by the UA.

The Final-Recipient address may differ from the address originally
provided by the sender, because it may have been transformed during
forwarding and gatewaying into an totally unrecognizable mess.
However, in the absence of the optional Original-Recipient field,
the Final-Recipient field and any returned content may be the only
information available with which to correlate the MDN with a par-
ticular message recipient.

The address-type subfield indicates the type of address expected by
the reporting MTA in that context.  Recipient addresses obtained via
SMTP will normally be of address-type "rfc822".

Since mailbox addresses (including those used in the Internet) may
be case sensitive, the case of alphabetic characters in the address
MUST be preserved.


3.3.5 Original-Message-ID field

The Original-Message-ID field indicates the message-ID of the
message for which the MDN is being issued.  It is obtained from the
Message-ID header of the message for which the MDN is issued.  This
field SHOULD be present if the original message contained a Message-
ID header.  The syntax of the field is

      original-message-id-field = "Original-Message-ID" ":"
          "<" addr-spec ">"

The addr-spec token is as specified in RFC 822 [5].



Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                      Page 9

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


3.3.6 Disposition field

The Disposition field indicates the action performed by the
Reporting-UA on behalf of the user.  This field MUST be present.

The syntax for the action-field is:

     disposition-field = "Disposition" ":" disposition-value

     disposition-value =
          "displayed" / "printed" / "forwarded" / "deleted" /
          "obsoleted" / "expired" / "terminated" / "denied"

The disposition-value may be spelled in any combination of upper and
lower case characters.

"displayed"  The message has been displayed by the UA to someone
             reading the recipient's mailbox.  There is no guarantee
             that the content has been read or understood.

"printed"    The message has been converted to hardcopy form by the
             UA on behalf of someone reading the recipient's mail-
             box.  This could include sending the message to a fax
             machine.

"forwarded"  The message has been forwarded to another mailbox.

"deleted"    The message has been deleted without being displayed to
             the recipient.

"obsoleted"  The message has been rendered obsolete by another
             message.

"expired"    The message has reached its expiration date and has
             been removed from the recipient's mailbox.

"terminated" The recipient's mailbox has been terminated.

"denied"     The recipient does not wish the sender to be informed
             of the message's disposition.  A UA may also siliently
             ignore message disposition requests in this situation.


3.4 Extension fields

Additional MDN fields may be defined in the future by later revi-
sions or extensions to this specification.  Extension-field names
beginning with "X-" will never be defined as standard fields; such
names are reserved for experimental use.  MDN field names NOT



Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 10

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


beginning with "X-" MUST be registered with the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) and described in an RFC.

Extension MDN fields may be defined for the following reasons:

(a)  To allow additional information from foreign disposition
     reports to be tunneled through Internet MDNs.  The names of
     such MDN fields should begin with an indication of the foreign
     environment name (e.g. X400-Physical-Forwarding-Address).

(b)  To allow transmission of diagnostic information which is
     specific to a particular user agent (UA).  The names of such
     MDN fields should begin with an indication of the UA implemen-
     tation which produced the MDN.  (e.g. Foomail-information).

If an UA developer does not wish to register the meanings of such
extension fields, "X-" fields may be used for this purpose.  To
avoid name collisions, the name of the UA implementation should
follow the "X-", (e.g. "X-Foomail-Log-ID").


4.  Conformance and Usage Requirements

A UA or gateway conforms to this specification if it generates MDNs
according to the protocol defined in this memo.  It is not necessary
to be able to generate all of the values of the Disposition field.

UAs and gateways MUST NOT generate the Original-Recipient field of
an MDN unless the mail protocols provide the address originally
specified by the sender at the time of submission.  Ordinary SMTP
does not make that guarantee, but the SMTP extension defined in [4]
permits such information to be carried in the envelope if it is
available.  The Original-recipient header defined in this document
provides a way for the MTA to pass the original recipient address to
the UA.

Each sender-specified recipient address may result in more than one
MDN.  If an MDN is requested for a recipient that is forwarded to
multiple recipients of an "alias" (as defined in [4], section
7.2.7), each of the recipients may issue an MDN.

By contrast, successful distribution of a message to a mailing list
exploder may be considered final disposition of the message.  A
mailing list exploder may issue an MDN indicating that the message
has been forwarded to the list.  In this case, the request for MDNs
is not propogated to the members of the list.  Alternatively, the
mailing list exploder may issue no MDN and propogate the request for
MDNs to all members of the list.  The later behavior is not recom-
mended for any but small, closely knit lists.



Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 11

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


This specification places no restrictions on the processing of MDNs
received by user agents or mailing lists.


5.  Security considerations

The following security considerations apply when using MDNs:


5.1 Forgery

MDNs may be forged as easily as ordinary Internet electronic mail.
User agents and automatic mail handling facilities (such as mail
distribution list exploders) that wish to make automatic use of MDNs
should take appropriate precautions to minimize the potential damage
from denial-of-service attacks.

Security threats related to forged MDNs include the sending of:

(a)  A falsified disposition notification when the indicated dis-
     position of the message has not actually ocurred,

(b)  Unsolicited MDNs


5.2 Confidentiality

Another dimension of security is confidentiality.  There may be
cases in which a message recipient does not wish the disposition of
messages addressed to him to be known.  In this situation, it is
acceptable for the UA to issue "denied" MDNs or to silently ignore
requests for MDNs.

In general, any optional MDN field may be omitted if the Reporting
UA site or user determines that inclusion of the field would impose
too great a compromise of site confidentiality.  The need for such
confidentiality must be balanced against the utility of the omitted
information in MDNs.


5.3 Non-Repudiation

Within the framework of today's internet mail, the MDNs defined in
this document provide valuable information to the mail user;
however, MDNs can not be relied upon as a guarantee that a message
was or was not not seen by the recipient.  Even if MDNs are not
actively forged, they may be lost in transit.  The MDN issuing
mechanism may be bypassed in some manner by the recipient.




Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 12

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


6.  Appendix - collected grammar

NOTE:  The following lexical tokens are defined in RFC 822:  addr-
spec, address, atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, DIGIT, LF, linear-
white-space, SPACE, text.  The date-time lexical token is defined in
RFC 1123 [7].

mdn-request-header = "Disposition-notification-to" ":" address

original-recipient-header =
     "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

disposition-notification-content = reporting-ua-field CRLF
     [ mdn-gateway-field CRLF ]
     [ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
     final-recipient-field CRLF
     [message-id-field CRLF]
     disposition-field CRLF
     *( extension-field CRLF)

address-type = atom

ua-name-type = atom

mta-name-type = atom

reporting-ua-field = "Reporting-UA" ":" ua-name-type ";" ua-name

ua-name = *text

mdn-gateway-field = "MDN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
original-recipient-field =
     "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

generic-address = *text

final-recipient-field =
     "Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

disposition-field = "Disposition" ":" disposition-value

disposition-value =
     "displayed" / "printed" / "forwarded" / "deleted" /
     "obsoleted" / "expired" / "terminated" / "denied"

original-message-id-field = "Original-Message-ID" ":" "<" addr-spec ">"

extension-field = extension-field-name ":" *text

extension-field-name = atom


Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 13

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


7.  Appendix - Guidelines for gatewaying MDNs

NOTE:  This section provides non-binding recommendations for the
construction of mail gateways that wish to provide semi-transparent
disposition notifications between the Internet and another
electronic mail system.  Specific MDN gateway requirements for a
particular pair of mail systems may be defined by other documents.


6.1 Gatewaying from other mail systems to MDNs

A mail gateway may issue an MDN to convey the contents of a "for-
eign" disposition notification over Internet mail.  When there are
appropriate mappings from the foreign notification elements to MDN
fields, the information may be transmitted in those MDN fields.
Additional information (such as might be needed to tunnel the
foreign notification through the Internet) may be defined in exten-
sion MDN fields.  (Such fields should be given names that identify
the foreign mail protocol, e.g. X400-* for X.400 protocol elements)

The gateway must attempt to supply reasonable values for the
Reporting-UA, Final-Recipient, and Disposition fields.  These will
normally be obtained by translating the values from the foreign
notification into their Internet-style equivalents.  However, some
loss of information is to be expected.

The sender-specified recipient address, and the original message-id,
if present in the foreign notification, should be preserved in the
Original-Recipient and Original-Message-ID fields.

The gateway should also attempt to preserve the "final" recipient
address from the foreign system.  Whenever possible, foreign
protocol elements should be encoded as meaningful printable ASCII
strings.

For MDNs produced from foreign disposition notifications, the name
of the gateway MUST appear in the MDN-Gateway field of the MDN.















Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 14

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


7.2 Gatewaying from MDNs to other mail systems

It may be possible to gateway MDNs from the Internet into a foreign
mail system.  The primary purpose of such gatewaying is to convey
disposition information in a form that is usable by the destination
system.  A secondary purpose is to allow "tunneling" of MDNs through
foreign mail systems, in case the MDN may be gatewayed back into the
Internet.

In general, the recipient of the MDN (i.e., the sender of the
original message) will want to know, for each recipient:  the
closest available approximation to the original recipient address,
and the disposition (displayed, printed, etc.).

If possible, the gateway should attempt to preserve the Original-
Recipient address and Original-Message-ID (if present), in the
resulting foreign disposition report.

If it is possible to tunnel an MDN through the destination environ-
ment, the gateway specification may define a means of preserving the
MDN information in the disposition reports used by that environment.































Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 15

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


9.  Appendix - IANA registration forms for MDN types

The forms below are for use when registering a new address-type,
UA-name-type, or MTA-name-type with the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA).  Each piece of information requested by a
registration form may be satisfied either by providing the informa-
tion on the form itself, or by including a reference to a published,
publicly available specification which includes the necessary
information.  IANA MAY reject MDN type registrations because of
incomplete registration forms, imprecise specifications, or inap-
propriate type names.

To register an MDN type, complete the applicable form below and send
it via Internet electronic mail to <IANA@IANA.ORG>.






































Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 16

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


9.1 IANA registration form for address-type

A registration for an address-type MUST include the following
information:

(a)  The proposed address-type name.

(b)  The syntax for mailbox addresses of this type, specified using
     BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous lan-
     guage.

(c)  If addresses of this type are not composed entirely of graphic
     characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for
     how they are to be encoded as graphic US-ASCII characters in a
     MDN Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient MDN field.

(d)  [optional] A specification for how addresses of this type are
     to be translated to and from Internet electronic mail ad-
     dresses.


9.2 IANA registration form for UA-name-type

A registration for a UA-name-type must include the following infor-
mation:

(a)  The proposed UA-name-type name.

(b)  A description of the syntax of UA names of this type, using
     BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous lan-
     guage.

(c)  If UA names of this type do not consist entirely of graphic
     characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for
     how an MTA name of this type should be expressed as a sequence
     of graphic US-ASCII characters.


9.3 IANA registration form for MTA-name-type

A registration for a MDN MTA-name-type must include the following
information:

(a)  The proposed MTA-name-type name.

(b)  A description of the syntax of MTA names of this type, using
     BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous lan-
     guage.




Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 17

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


(c)  If MTA names of this type do not consist entirely of graphic
     characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for
     how an MTA name of this type should be expressed as a sequence
     of graphic US-ASCII characters.
















































Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 18

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


10.  Appendix - Examples

NOTE:  These examples are provided as illustration only, and are not
considered part of the MDN protocol specification.  If an example
conflicts with the protocol definition above, the example is wrong.

Likewise, the use of *-type subfield names or extension fields in
these examples is not to be construed as a definition for those type
names or extension fields.











































Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 19

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


10.1 This is an MDN issued after a message has been displayed to the
user of an Internet Mail user agent.


Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:19:00 (EDT) -0400
From: Joe Recipient <Joe_Recipient@mega.edu>
Message-Id: <199509200019.12345@mega.edu>
Subject: Disposition notification
To: Jane Sender <Jane_Sender@huge.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=disposition-notification;
      boundary="RAA14128.773615765/mega.edu"

--RAA14128.773615765/mega.edu

The message sent on 1995 Sep 19 at 13:30:00 (EDT) -0400 to
Joe Recipient <Joe_Recipient@mega.edu> with subject "First
draft of report" has been displayed.  This is no guarantee
that the message has been read or understood.

--RAA14128.773615765/mega.edu
content-type: message/disposition-notification

Reporting-UA: foomail; joes-pc.cs.mega.edu
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Joe_Recipient@mega.edu
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Joe_Recipient@mega.edu
Original-Message-ID: <199509192301.12345@mega.edu>
Disposition: displayed

--RAA14128.773615765/mega.edu
content-type: message/rfc822

[original message goes here]

--RAA14128.773615765/mega.edu--

















Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 20

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


11.  Acknowledgments

This document is based on the Delivery Status Notifications document
[8] by Keith Moore and Greg Vaudreuil.
















































Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 21

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


12.  References

[1]  Borenstein, N., Freed, N. "Multipurpose Internet Mail Exten-
     sions", RFC 1521, Bellcore, Innosoft, September 1993.

[2]  Vaudreuil, G. "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the
     Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", Internet-
     Draft draft-ietf-notary-mime-report-03.txt, 5 May 1995.

[3]  Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
     USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.

[4]  Moore, K.  "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
     Notifications", Internet-Draft
     draft-ietf-notary-smtp-drpt-04.txt, 29 May 1995.

[5]  Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
     Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.

[6]  Moore, K. "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part
     Two:  Message Header Extensions for Non-Ascii Text", RFC 1522,
     University of Tennessee, September 1993.

[7]  Braden, R. (ed.) "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
     and Support", RFC 1123, October 1989.

[8]  Moore, K. and Vaudreuil, G. "An Extensible Format for Delivery
     Status Notifications, Internet Draft, 21 June 1995.
























Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 22

Message Disposition Notifications                         5 October 1995
Internet Draft


12.  Author's Address

Roger Fajman
National Institutes of Health
12 South Drive MSC 5659
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-5659
USA

Email:  raf@cu.nih.gov
Voice:  +1 301 402 4265
Fax:    +1 301 480 6241









































Fajman                 Expires 10 April 1996                     Page 23