Internet Draft Greg Vaudreuil
Expires in six months Lucent Technologies
October 19, 2000
SMTP Service Extensions
for Transmission of Large
and Binary MIME Messages
<draft-vaudreuil-esmtp-binary2-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
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 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 a "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.
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).
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This Internet-Draft is in conformance with Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Abstract
This memo defines two extensions to the SMTP service. The first
extension enables a SMTP client and server to negotiate the use of an
alternative to the DATA command, called "BDAT", for efficiently
sending large MIME messages. The second extension takes advantage of
the BDAT command to permit the negotiated sending of MIME messages
that employ the binary transfer encoding. This document is intended to
update and obsolete RFC1830.
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
Working Group Summary
This protocol is not the product of an IETF working group, however the
specification resulted from discussions within the ESMTP working
group. The resulting protocol documented in RFC1830 was classified as
experimental at that time due to questions about the robustness of the
Binary Content-Transfer-Encoding deployed in then existent MIME
implementations. As MIME has matured and other uses of the Binary
Content-Transfer-Encoding have been deployed, these concerns have been
allayed. With this document, Binary ESMTP is expected to become
standards-track.
Document Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. OVERVIEW ..........................................................2
2. FRAMEWORK FOR THE LARGE MESSAGE EXTENSIONS ........................3
3. FRAMEWORK FOR THE BINARY SERVICE EXTENSION ........................6
4. EXAMPLES ..........................................................8
4.1 Simple Chunking .................................................8
4.2 Pipelining BINARYMIME ...........................................9
5. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................10
6. REFERENCES .......................................................10
7. COPYRIGHT NOTICE .................................................10
8. AUTHOR'S ADDRESS .................................................11
9. APPENDIX A - CHANGES FROM RFC1830 ................................12
1. Overview
The MIME extensions to the Internet message format provides for the
transmission of many kinds of data that were previously unsupported in
Internet mail. Anticipating the need to transport the new media more
efficiently, the SMTP protocol has been extended to provide transport
for new message types. RFC 1652 defines one such extension for the
transmission of unencoded 8-bit MIME messages [8BIT]. This service
extension permits the receiver SMTP to declare support for 8-bit body
parts and the sender to request 8-bit transmission of a particular
message.
One expected result of the use of MIME is that the Internet mail
system will be expected to carry very large mail messages. In such
transactions, there is a performance-based desire to eliminate the
requirement that the message be scanned for "CR LF . CR LF" sequences
upon sending and receiving to detect the end of message.
Independent of the need to send large messages, Internet mail is
increasingly multimedia. There is a need to avoid the overhead of
base64 and quoted-printable encoding of binary objects sent using the
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 2]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
MIME message format over SMTP between hosts that support binary
message processing.
This memo uses the mechanism defined in [ESMTP] to define two
extensions to the SMTP service whereby an SMTP server ("receiver-
SMTP") may declare support for the message chunking transmission mode
and support for the receiption of Binary messages, which the SMTP
client ("sender-SMTP") is then free to use.
2. Framework for the Large Message Extensions
The following service extension is hereby defined:
1) The name of the data chunking service extension is "CHUNKING".
2) The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
"CHUNKING".
3) A new SMTP verb, BDAT, is defined as an alternative to the "DATA"
command of [RFC821]. The BDAT verb takes two arguments. The first
argument indicates the length, in octets, of the binary data chunk.
The second optional argument indicates that the data chunk is the
last.
bdat-cmd ::= "BDAT" SP chunk-size [ SP end-marker ] CR LF
chunk-size ::= 1*DIGIT
end-marker ::= "LAST"
4) This extension may be used for SMTP message submission. [Submit]
5) Servers that offer the BDAT extension MUST continue to support the
regular SMTP DATA command. Clients are free to use DATA to transfer
appropriately encoded to servers that support the CHUNKING extension
if they wish to do so.
The CHUNKING service extension enables the use of the BDAT alternative
to the DATA command. This extension can be used for any message,
whether 7-bit, 8BITMIME or BINARYMIME.
When a sender-SMTP wishes to send (using the MAIL command) a large
message using the CHUNKING extension, it first issues the EHLO command
to the receiver-SMTP. If the receiver-SMTP responds with code 250 to
the EHLO command and the response includes the EHLO keyword value
CHUNKING, then the receiver-SMTP is indicating that it supports the
BDAT command and will accept the sending of messages in chunks.
After all MAIL and RCPT responses are collected and processed, the
message is sent using a series of BDAT commands. The BDAT command
takes one required argument, the exact length of the data segment in
octets. The message data is sent immediately after the trailing <CR>
<LF> of the BDAT command line. Once the receiver-SMTP receives the
specified number of octets, it will return a 250 reply code.
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 3]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
The optional LAST parameter on the BDAT command indicates that this is
the last chunk of message data to be sent. The last BDAT command MAY
have a byte-count of zero indicating there is no additional data to be
sent. Any BDAT command sent after the BDAT LAST is illegal and MUST be
replied to with a 503 "Bad sequence of commands" reply code. The state
resulting from this error is indeterminate. A RSET command MUST be
sent to clear the transaction before continuing.
A 250 response MUST be sent to each successful BDAT data block within
a mail transaction. If a failure occurs after a BDAT command is
received, the receiver-SMTP MUST accept and discard the associated
message data before sending the appropriate 5XX or 4XX code. If a 5XX
or 4XX code is received by the sender-SMTP in response to a BDAT
chunk, the transaction should be considered failed and the sender-SMTP
MUST NOT send any additional BDAT segments. If the receiver-SMTP has
declared support for command pipelining [PIPE], the receiver SMTP MUST
be prepared to accept and discard additional BDAT chunks already in
the pipeline after the failed BDAT.
Note: An error on the receiver-SMTP such as disk full or imminent
shutdown can only be reported after the BDAT segment has been
received. It is therefore important to choose a reasonable chunk
size given the expected end-to-end bandwidth.
Note: Because the receiver-SMTP does not acknowledge the BDAT
command before the message data is sent, it is important to send
the BDAT only to systems that have declared their capability to
accept BDAT commands. Illegally sending a BDAT command and
associated message data to a non-CHUNKING capable system will
result in the receiver-SMTP parsing the associated message data
as if it were a potentially very long, ESMTP command line
containing binary data.
The resulting state from a failed BDAT command is indeterminate. A
RSET command MUST be issued to clear the transaction before additional
commands may be sent. The RSET command, when issued after the first
BDAT and before the BDAT LAST, clears all segments sent during that
transaction and resets the session.
DATA and BDAT commands cannot be used in the same transaction. If a
DATA statement is issued after a BDAT for the current transaction, a
503 "Bad sequence of commands" MUST be issued. The state resulting
from this error is indeterminate. A RSET command MUST be sent to
clear the transaction before continuing. There is no prohibition on
using DATA and BDAT in the same session, so long as they are not mixed
in the same transaction.
The local storage size of a message may not accurately reflect the
actual size of the message sent due to local storage conventions. In
particular, text messages sent with the BDAT command MUST be sent in
the canonical MIME format with lines delimited with a <CR><LF>. It
may not be possible to convert the entire message to the canonical
format at once. CHUNKING provides a mechanism to convert the message
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 4]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
to canonical form, accurately count the bytes, and send the message a
single chunk at a time.
Note: Correct byte counting is essential. If the sender-SMTP
indicates a chunk-size larger than the actual chunk-size, the
receiver-SMTP will continue to wait for the remainder of the
data or when using streaming, will read the subsequent command
as additional message data. In the case where a portion of the
previous command was read as data, the parser will return a
syntax error when the incomplete command is read.
If the sender-SMTP indicates a chunk-size smaller than the
actual chunk-size, the receiver-SMTP will interpret the
remainder of the message data as invalid commands. Note that
the remainder of the message data may be binary and as such
lexicographical parsers MUST be prepared to receive, process,
and reject lines of arbitrary octets.
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 5]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
3. Framework for the Binary Service Extension
The following service extension is hereby defined:
1) The name of the binary service extension is "BINARYMIME".
2) The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
"BINARYMIME".
3) The BINARYMIME service extension can only be used with the
"CHUNKING" service extension.
4) No parameter is used with the BINARYMIME keyword.
5) [8BIT] defines the BODY parameter for the MAIL command. This
extension defines an additional value for the BODY parameter,
"BINARYMIME". The value "BINARYMIME" associated with this parameter
indicates that this message is a Binary MIME message (in strict
compliance with [MIME]) with arbitrary octet content being sent. The
revised syntax of the value is as follows, using the ABNF notation of
[RFC822]:
body-value ::= "7BIT" / "8BITMIME" / "BINARYMIME"
6) No new verbs are defined for the BINARYMIME extension.
7) This extension may be used for SMTP message submission. [Submit]
8) The maximum length of a MAIL FROM command line is increased by 16
characters by the possible addition of the BODY=BINARYMIME keyword and
value;.
A sender-SMTP may request that a binary MIME message be sent without
transport encoding by sending a BODY parameter with a value of
"BINARYMIME" with the MAIL command. When the receiver-SMTP accepts a
MAIL command with the BINARYMIME body-value, it agrees to preserve all
bits in each octet passed using the BDAT command. Once a receiver-SMTP
supporting the BINARYMIME service extension accepts a message
containing binary material, the receiver-SMTP MUST deliver or relay
the message in such a way as to preserve all bits in each octet.
BINARYMIME cannot be used with the DATA command. If a DATA command is
issued after a MAIL command containing the body-value of "BINARYMIME",
a 503 "Bad sequence of commands" response MUST be sent. The resulting
state from this error condition is indeterminate and the transaction
MUST be reset with the RSET command.
It is especially important when using BINARYMIME to ensure that the
MIME message itself is properly formed. In particular, it is
essential that text be canonically encoded with each line properly
terminated with <CR><LF>. Any transformation of text into non-
canonical MIME to observe local storage conventions MUST be reversed
before sending as BINARYMIME. Some line-oriented shortcuts will break
if used with BINARYMIME. A sender-SMTP MUST use the canonical encoding
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 6]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
for a given MIME content-type. In particular, text/* MUST be sent
with <CR><LF> terminated lines.
Note: Although CR and LF do not necessarily represent ends of text
lines in BDAT chunks and use of the binary transfer encoding is
allowed, the RFC 2781 prohibition against using a UTF-16 charset
within the text top-level media type remains.
The syntax of the extended MAIL command is identical to the MAIL
command in [RFC821], except that a BODY=BINARYMIME parameter and value
MUST be added. The complete syntax of this extended command is defined
in [ESMTP].
If a receiver-SMTP does not indicate support the BINARYMIME message
format then the sender-SMTP MUST NOT, under any circumstances, send
binary data.
If the receiver-SMTP does not support BINARYMIME and the message to be
sent is a MIME object with a binary encoding, a sender-SMTP has three
options with which to forward the message. First, if the receiver-SMTP
supports the 8bit-MIMEtransport extension [8bit] and the content is
amenable to being encoded in 8bit, the sender-SMTP may implement a
gateway transformation to convert the message into valid 8bit-encoded
MIME. Second, it may implement a gateway transformation to convert the
message into valid 7bit-encoded MIME. Third, it may treat this as a
permanent error and handle it in the usual manner for delivery
failures. The specifics of MIME content-transfer-encodings, including
transformations from Binary MIME to 8bit or 7bit MIME are not
described by this RFC; the conversion is nevertheless constrained in
the following ways:
1. The conversion MUST cause no loss of information; MIME
transport encodings MUST be employed as needed to insure this is the
case.
2. The resulting message MUST be valid 7bit or 8bit MIME. In
particular, the transformation MUST NOT result in nested Base-64 or
Quoted-Printable content-transfer-encodings.
Note that at the time of this writing there are no mechanisms for
converting a binary MIME object into an 8-bit MIME object. Such a
transformation will require the specification of a new MIME content-
transfer-encoding.
If the MIME message contains a "Binary" content-transfer-encoding and
the BODY parameter does not indicate BINARYMIME, the message MUST be
accepted. The message SHOULD be returned to the sender with an
appropriate DSN. The message contents MAY be returned to the sender
if the offending content can be mangled into a legal DSN structure.
"Fixing" and forwarding the offending content is beyond the scope of
this document.
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 7]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
4. Examples
4.1 Simple Chunking
The following simple dialogue illustrates the use of the large message
extension to send a short pseudo-RFC822 message to one recipient using
the CHUNKING extension:
R: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>
S: <open connection to server>
R: 220 cnri.reston.va.us SMTP service ready
S: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu
R: 250-cnri.reston.va.us says hello
R: 250 CHUNKING
S: MAIL FROM:<Sam@Random.com>
R: 250 <Sam@Random.com> Sender ok
S: RCPT TO:<Susan@Random.com>
R: 250 <Susan@random.com> Recipient ok
S: BDAT 86 LAST
S: To: Susan@random.com<CR><LF>
S: From: Sam@random.com<CR><LF>
S: Subject: This is a bodyless test message<CR><LF>
R: 250 Message OK, 86 octets received
S: QUIT
R: 221 Goodbye
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 8]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
4.2 Pipelining BINARYMIME
The following dialogue illustrates the use of the large message
extension to send a BINARYMIME object to two recipients using the
CHUNKING and PIPELINING extensions:
R: <wait for connection on TCP port
S: <open connection to server>
R: 220 cnri.reston.va.us SMTP service ready
S: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu
R: 250-cnri.reston.va.us says hello
R: 250-PIPELINING
R: 250-BINARYMIME
R: 250 CHUNKING
S: MAIL FROM:<ned@ymir.claremont.edu> BODY=BINARYMIME
S: RCPT TO:<gvaudre@cnri.reston.va.us>
S: RCPT TO:<jstewart@cnri.reston.va.us>
R: 250 <ned@ymir.claremont.edu>... Sender and BINARYMIME ok
R: 250 <gvaudre@cnri.reston.va.us>... Recipient ok
R: 250 <jstewart@cnri.reston.va.us>... Recipient ok
S: BDAT 100000
S: (First 10000 octets of canonical MIME message data)
S: BDAT 324
S: (Remaining 324 octets of canonical MIME message data)
S: BDAT 0 LAST
R: 250 100000 octets received
R: 250 324 octets received
R: 250 Message OK, 100324 octets received
S: QUIT
R: 221 Goodbye
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 9]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
5. Security Considerations
This extension is not known to present any additional security issues
not already endemic to electronic mail and present in fully conforming
implementations of [RFC821], or otherwise made possible by [MIME].
6. References
[BINARY] Vaudreuil, G, " SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of
Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 1830, August 1995.
[RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.
[MIME] N. Borenstein, and N. Freed, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC
2045, Bellcore, Innosoft, November 1996.
[SUBMIT] R. Gellens, and J. Klensin, "Message Submission", RFC 2476,
Qualcomm, MCI, December 1998.
[ESMTP] Klensin, J., WG Chair, Freed, N., Editor, Rose, M., Stefferud,
E., and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions" RFC 1869, United Nations
University, Innosoft International, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting,
Inc., Network Management Associates, Inc., The Branch Office, November
1995.
[8BIT] Klensin, J., WG Chair, Freed, N., Editor, Rose, M., Stefferud,
E., and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport"
RFC 1652, United Nations University, Innosoft International, Inc.,
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., Network Management Associates, Inc., The
Branch Office, July 1994.
[PIPE] Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extensions for Command Pipelining",
RFC 2920, Innosoft, September 2000.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard, March 1997.
7. Copyright Notice
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 10]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process MUST be followed,
or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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."
8. Author's Address
Gregory M. Vaudreuil
Lucent Technologies
17080 Dallas Parkway
Dallas, TX 75248-1905
Voice/Fax: +1-972-733-2722
GregV@ieee.org
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 11]
Internet Draft Binary ESMTP October 19, 2000
9. Appendix A - Changes from RFC1830
Numerous editorial changes including required intellectual property
boilerplate and revised authors contact information
Corrected the simple chunking example to use the correct number of
bytes. Updated the pipelining example to illustrate use of the BDAT 0
LAST construct.
Vaudreuil Expires 2/10/01 [Page 12]