Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]
PROPOSED STANDARD
Network Working Group S. KilleRequest for Comments: 2156 Isode Ltd.Obsoletes:987,1026,1138,1148,1327,1495 January 1998Updates:822Category: Standards TrackMIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay):Mapping between X.400 andRFC 822/MIMEStatus of this Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.Table of Contents1 - Overview ......................................31.1 - X.400 .........................................31.2 -RFC 822 and MIME ..............................31.3 - The need for conversion .......................41.4 - General approach ..............................41.5 - Gatewaying Model ..............................51.6 - Support of X.400 (1984) .......................81.7 - X.400 (1992) ..................................81.8 - MIME ..........................................81.9 - Body Parts ....................................81.10 - Local and Global Scenarios ....................91.11 - Compatibility with previous versions ..........101.12 - Aspects not covered ...........................101.13 - Subsetting ....................................111.14 - Specification Language ........................111.15 - Related Specifications ........................111.16 - Document Structure ............................121.17 - Acknowledgements ..............................122 - Service Elements ..............................132.1 - The Notion of Service Across a Gateway ........132.2 -RFC 822 .......................................152.3 - X.400 .........................................183 - Basic Mappings ................................273.1 - Notation ......................................27Kille Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19983.2 - ASCII and IA5 .................................293.3 - Standard Types ................................293.4 - Encoding ASCII in Printable String ............333.5 -RFC 1522 ......................................344 - Addressing and Message IDs ....................354.1 - A textual representation of MTS.ORAddress .....364.2 - Global Address Mapping ........................434.3 - EBNF.822-address <-> MTS.ORAddress ............464.4 - Repeated Mappings .............................594.5 - Directory Names ...............................624.6 - MTS Mappings ..................................624.7 - IPMS Mappings .................................675 - Detailed Mappings .............................715.1 -RFC 822 -> X.400: Detailed Mappings ...........715.2 - Return of Contents ............................865.3 - X.400 ->RFC 822: Detailed Mappings ...........86Appendix A - Mappings Specific to SMTP .....................1141 - Probes ........................................1142 - Long Lines ....................................1143 - SMTP Extensions ...............................1143.1 - SMTP Extension mapping to X.400 ...............1143.2 - X.400 Mapping to SMTP Extensions ..............115Appendix B - Mapping with X.400(1984) ......................116Appendix C -RFC 822 Extensions for X.400 access ...........118Appendix D - Object Identifier Assignment ..................119Appendix E - BNF Summary ...................................120Appendix F - Text format for MCGAM distribution ............1271 - Text Formats ..................................127 2 - Mechanisms to register and to distribute MCGAMs ........................................1273 - Syntax Definitions ............................1284 - Table Lookups .................................1295 - Domain -> OR Address MCGAM format .............1296 - OR Address -> Domain MCGAM format .............129 7 - Domain -> OR Address of Preferred Gateway table .........................................130 8 - OR Addresss -> domain of Preferred Gateway table .........................................130Appendix G - Conformance ...................................131Appendix H - Change History:RFC 987, 1026, 1138, 1148 ...............................................1331 - Introduction ..................................1332 - Service Elements ..............................1333 - Basic Mappings ................................1334 - Addressing ....................................1345 - Detailed Mappings .............................1346 - Appendices ....................................134Appendix I - Change History:RFC 1148 toRFC 1327 ..........135Kille Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19981 - General .......................................1352 - Basic Mappings ................................1353 - Addressing ....................................1354 - Detailed Mappings .............................1355 - Appendices ....................................136Appendix J - Change History:RFC 1327 to this Document ...............................................1371 - General .......................................1372 - Service Elements ..............................1373 - Basic Mappings ................................1374 - Addressing ....................................1375 - Detailed Mappings .............................1386 - Appendices ....................................138Appendix L - ASN.1 Summary .................................139 Security Considerations ....................................141 Author's Address ...........................................141 References .................................................141 Full Copyright Statement ...................................144Chapter 1 -- Overview1.1. X.400 This document relates primarily to the ITU-T 1988 and 1992 X.400 Series Recommendations / ISO IEC 10021 International Standard. This ISO/ITU-T standard is referred to in this document as "X.400", which is a convenient shorthand. Any reference to the 1984 Recommendations will be explicit. Any mappings relating to elements which are in the 1992 version and not in the 1988 version will be noted explicitly. X.400 defines an Interpersonal Messaging System (IPMS), making use of a store and forward Message Transfer System. This document relates to the IPMS, and not to wider application of X.400, such as EDI as defined in X.435.1.2.RFC 822 and MIMERFC 822 evolved as a messaging standard on the DARPA (the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Internet.RFC 822 specifies an end to end message format, consisting of a header and an unstructured text body. MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) specifies a structured message body format for use withRFC 822. The term "RFC822" is used in this document to refer to the combination of MIME andRFC 822.RFC 822 and MIME are used in conjunction with a number of different message transfer protocol environments. The core of the MIXER specification is designed to work with any supporting message transfer protocol.Kille Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 One transfer protocol, SMTP, is of particular importance and is covered in MIXER. On the Internet and other TCP/IP networks,RFC 822 is used in conjunction withRFC 821, also known as Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [30], in a manner conformant with the host requirements specification [10]. Use of MIXER with SMTP is defined inAppendix A.1.3. The need for conversion There is a large community usingRFC 822 based protocols for mail services, who will wish to communicate with users of the IPMS provided by X.400 systems. This will also be a requirement in cases where communities intend to make a transition between the different technologies, as conversion will be needed to ensure a smooth service transition. It is expected that there will be more than one gateway, and this specification will enable them to behave in a consistent manner. Note that the term gateway is used to describe a component performing the mapping betweenRFC 822 and X.400. This is standard usage amongst mail implementors, but differs from that used by transport and network service implementors. Consistency between gateways is desirable to provide: 1. Consistent service to users. 2. The best service in cases where a message passes through multiple gateways.1.4. General approach There are a number of basic principles underlying the details of the specification. These principles are goals, and are not achieved in all aspects of the specification. 1. The specification should be pragmatic. There should not be a requirement for complex mappings for "Academic" reasons. Complex mappings should not be required to support trivial additional functionality. 2. Subject to 1), functionality across a gateway should be as high as possible. 3. It is always a bad idea to lose information as a result of any transformation. Hence, it is a bad idea for a gateway to discard information in the objects it processes. This includes requested services which cannot be fully mapped.Kille Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 4. Mail gateways operate at a level above the layer on which they perform mappings. This implies that the gateway shall not only be cognisant of the semantics of objects at the gateway level, but also be cognisant of higher level semantics. If meaningful transformation of the objects that the gateway operates on is to occur, then the gateway needs to understand more than the objects themselves. 5. Subject to 1), the mapping should be reversible. That is, a double transformation should bring you back to where you started.1.5. Gatewaying Model1.5.1. X.400 X.400 defines the IPMS Abstract Service in X.420 , [11] which comprises of three basic services: 1. Origination 2. Reception 3. Management Management is a local interaction between the user and the IPMS, and is therefore not relevant to gatewaying. The first two services consist of operations to originate and receive the following two objects: 1. IPM (Interpersonal Message). This has two components: a heading, and a body. The body is structured as a sequence of body parts, which may be basic components (e.g., IA5 text, or G3 fax), or forwarded Interpersonal Messages. The heading consists of fields containing end to end user information, such as subject, primary recipients (To:), and importance. 2. IPN (Inter Personal Notification). A notification about receipt of a given IPM at the UA level. The Origination service also allows for origination of a probe, which is an object to test whether a given IPM could be correctly received. The Reception service also allows for receipt of Delivery Reports (DR), which indicate delivery success or failure.Kille Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 These IPMS Services utilise the Message Transfer System (MTS) Abstract Service [12]. The MTS Abstract Service provides the following three basic services: 1. Submission (used by IPMS Origination) 2. Delivery (used by IPMS Reception) 3. Administration (used by IPMS Management) Administration is a local issue, and so does not affect this standard. Submission and delivery relate primarily to the MTS Message (comprising Envelope and Content), which carries an IPM or IPN (or other uninterpreted contents). The Envelope includes a message identifier, an originator, and a list of recipients. Submission also includes the probe service, which supports the MTS Probe. Delivery also includes Reports, which indicate whether a given MTS Message has been delivered or not (or for a probe if delivery would have happened). The MTS is provided by MTAs which interact using the MTA (Message Transfer Agent) Service, which defines the interaction between MTAs, along with the procedures for distributed operation. This service provides for transfer of MTS Messages, Probes, and Reports.1.5.2.RFC 822RFC 822 is based on the assumption that there is an underlying service, which is here called the 822-MTS service. The 822-MTS service provides three basic functions: 1. Identification of a list of recipients. 2. Identification of an error return address. 3. Transfer of anRFC 822 message. It is possible to achieve 2) within theRFC 822 header. This specification will be used most commonly with SMTP as the 822- MTS service. The core MIXER specification is written so that it does not rely on non-basic 822-MTS services. Use of non-basic SMTP services is described inAppendix A. The core of this document is written using SMTP terminology for 822-MTS services. AnRFC 822 message consists of a header, and content which is uninterpreted ASCII text. The header is divided into fields, which are the protocol elements. Most of these fields are analogous to IPMKille Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 heading fields, although some are analogous to MTS Service Elements or MTA Service Elements.RFC 822 supports delivery status notifications by use of the NOTARY mechanisms [28].1.5.3. The Gateway Given this functional description of the two services, the functional nature of a gateway can now be considered. It would be elegant to consider the SMTP (822-MTS) service mapping onto the MTS Service Elements andRFC 822 mapping onto an IPM, but there is a not a clear match between these services. Another elegant approach would be to treat this document as the definition of an X.400 Access Unit (AU). In this case, the abstraction level is too high, and some necessary mapping function is lost. It is necessary to consider that the IPM format definition, the IPMS Service Elements, the MTS Service Elements, and MTA Service Elements on one side are mapped intoRFC822 + SMTP on the other in a slightly tangled manner. The details of the tangle will be made clear in Chapter 5. Access to the MTA Service Elements is minimised. The following basic mappings are thus defined. When going fromRFC822 to X.400, anRFC 822 message and the associated SMTP information is always mapped into an IPM (MTA, MTS, and IPMS Services) and a Delivery Status Notification is mapped onto a Report. Going from X.400 toRFC 822, anRFC 822 message and the associated SMTP information may be derived from: 1. An IPN (MTA, MTS, and IPMS services) 2. An IPM (MTA, MTS, and IPMS services) A Report (MTA, and MTS Services) is mapped onto a delivery status notification. Probes (MTA Service) shall be processed by the gateway, as discussed in Chapter 5. MTS Messages containing Content Types other than those defined by the IPMS are not mapped by the gateway, and shall be rejected at the gateway if no other gatewaying procedure is defined. This specification is concerned with X.400 IPMS. Future specifications may defined mappings for other X.400 content types.Kille Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19981.5.4. Repeated Mappings The primary goal of this specification is to support single mappings, so that X.400 andRFC 822 users can communicate with maximum functionality. The mappings specified here are designed to work where a message traverses multiple times between X.400 andRFC 822. This is often essential, particularly in the case of distribution lists. However, in general, this will lead to a level of service which is the lowest common denominator (approximately the services offered byRFC 822). SomeRFC 822 networks may wish to use X.400 as an interconnection mechanism (typically for policy reasons), and this is fully supported. Where an X.400 message transfers toRFC 822 and then back to X.400, there is no expectation of X.400 services which do not have an equivalent service in standardRFC 822 being preserved - although this may be possible in some cases.1.6. Support of X.400 (1984) The MIXER definition is based on the initial specification ofRFC 987 and in its addendumRFC 1026, which defined a mapping between X.400(1984) andRFC 822. The core MIXER mapping is defined using the full 1988 version of X.400, and not to a 1984 compatible subset. New features of X.400(1988) can be used to provide a much cleaner mapping than that defined inRFC 987. To interwork with 1984 systems,Appendix B shall be followed. If a message is being transferred to an X.400(1984) system by way of X.400(1988) MTA it will give a slightly better service to follow the rules ofAppendix B, than to downgrade without this knowledge. Downgrading specifications which supplement those specified in X.400 (X.419) are given inRFC 1328 [22] andRFC 1496 (HARPOON) [5].1.7. X.400 (1992) X.400 (1992) features are not used by the core of this mapping, and so there is not an equivalent downgrade problem.1.8. MIME MIME format messages are generated by this mapping. As MIME messages are fullyRFC 822 compliant, this will not cause problems with systems which are not MIME capable.Kille Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19981.9. Body Parts MIME and X.400 IPMS can both carry arbitrary body parts. MIME defines a mechanism for adding new body parts, and new body parts are registered with the IANA. X.400 defines a mechanism adding new body parts, usually referred to as Body Part 15. Extensions are defined by Object Identifiers, so there is no requirement for a central body part registration authority. The Electronic Messaging Association (EMA) maintains a list of some commonly used body parts. The EMA has specified a mechanism to use the File Transfer Body Part (FTBP) as a more generic means to support message attachments. This approach is gaining widespread commercial support. The mapping between X.400 and MIME body parts is defined in the companion MIXER specification, referenced here asRFC 2157 [8]. This document is an update ofRFC 1494 [6]. Editor's Note: References to 2157 will be resolved as these two documents are expected to progress in parallel. These two specifications together form the complete MIXER Mapping.1.10. Local and Global Scenarios There are two basic scenarios for X.400/MIME interworking: Global Scenario There are two global mail networks (Internet/MIME and X.400), interconnected by multiple gateways. Objects may be transferred over multiple gateways, and so it is important that gateways behave in a coherent fashion. MIXER is critical to support this scenario. Local Scenario A gateway is used to connect a closed community to a global mail network (this could be enforced by connectivity or gateway authorisation policy). This is a common commercial scenario. MIXER is useful to support this scenario, as it allows an industry standard provision of service, but this could be supported by something which was MIXER-like. A solution for the global scenario will work for the local scenario. However, there are aspects of MIXER which have significant implementation or deployment effort (the global mapping is the major one, but there are other details too) which and are needed to supportKille Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 the global scenario, but are not needed in the local scenario. Note that the local scenario may be the driving force for most deployments, and support of the global scenario may be an important secondary goal. There is also a transition effect. Gateways which are initially deployed in a strict local scenario situation start to find themselves in a global scenario. A common case is ADMD provided gateways, which are targeted strictly at the local scenario. In practice they soon start to operate in the global scenario, because of distribution lists and messages exchanged with X.400 users that are not customers of the ADMD. At this point, users are hurt by the restrictions of a local scenario gateway. Note that conformance to MIXER applies to an instantiation of a gateway, not just an implementation (although clearly it is critical that the implementation is capable of being operated in a conformant manner). MIXER's conformance target is the global scenario, and the specification of MIXER defines operation in this way.1.11. Compatibility with previous versions The changes between this and older versions of the document are given in Appendices H, I and J. These are RFCs 987, 1026, 1138, 1148 and 1327. This document is a revision ofRFC 1327 [21]. As far as possible, changes have been made in a compatible fashion.1.12. Aspects not covered There have been a number of cases where previous versions of this document were used in a manner which was not intended. This section is to make clear some limitations of scope. In particular, this specification does not specify: - Extensions ofRFC 822 to provide access to all X.400 services - X.400 user interface definition These are really coupled. To map the X.400 services, this specification defines a number of extensions toRFC 822. As a side effect, these give the 822 user access to SOME X.400 services. However, the aim on theRFC 822 side is to preserve current service, and it is intentional that access is not given to all X.400 services. Thus, it will be a poor choice for X.400 implementors to use MIXER asKille Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 an interface - there are too many aspects of X.400 which cannot be accessed through it. If a text interface is desired, a specification targeted at X.400, withoutRFC 822 restrictions, would be more appropriate. Some optional and limited extensions in this area have proved useful, and are defined inAppendix C.1.13. Subsetting This proposal specifies a mapping which is appropriate to preserve services in existingRFC 822 communities. Implementations and specifications which subset this specification are non-conformant and strongly discouraged.1.14. Specification Language ISO and Internet standards have clear definitions as to the style of language used. This specification maps between ISO/ITU-T protocol and Internet protocols. This document uses ISO terminology for the following reasons: 1. This was done in previous versions. 2. ISO language may be mechanically converted to Internet language, but not vice versa. The key elements of the ISO rules are: 1. All mandatory features shall clearly be indicated by imperative statements or the word "shall" or "shall not". 2. Optional features shall be indicated by the word "may". 3. The word "should" and the phrase "may not" shall not be used. In some cases the specification issues guidance on use of optional features, by use of the the phrase word "recommended" or "not recommended". To interpet this document according to Internet rules, replace every occurrence of "shall" with "must".1.15. Related Specifications Mappings between Mail-11 and X.400 and Mail-11 andRFC 822 are described inRFC 2162, using mappings related to those defined here [2].Kille Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19981.16. Document Structure This document has five chapters: 1. Overview - this chapter. 2. Service Elements - This describes the (end user) services mapped by a gateway. 3. Basic mappings - This describes some basic notation used in Chapters 3-5, the mappings between character sets, and some fundamental protocol elements. 4. Addressing - This considers the mapping between X.400 OR names andRFC 822 addresses, which is a fundamental gateway component. 5. Detailed Mappings - This describes the details of all other mappings. There are also ten appendices. WARNING: THE REMAINDER OF THIS SPECIFICATION IS TECHNICALLY DETAILED. IT WILL NOT MAKE SENSE, EXCEPT IN THE CONTEXT OFRFC 822 AND X.400 (1988). DO NOT ATTEMPT TO READ THIS DOCUMENT UNLESS YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS.1.17. Acknowledgements The work in this specification was substantially based onRFC 987 andRFC 1148, which had input from many people, who are credited in the respective documents. A number of comments from people onRFC 1148 lead toRFC 1327. In particular, there were comments and suggestions from: Maurice Abraham (HP); Harald Alvestrand (Sintef); Peter Cowen (X-Tel); Jim Craigie (JNT); Ella Gardner (MITRE); Christian Huitema (Inria); Erik Huizer (SURFnet); Neil Jones (DEC); Ignacio Martinez (IRIS); Julian Onions (X-Tel); Simon Poole (SWITCH); Clive Roberts (Data General); Pete Vanderbilt (SUN); Alan Young (Concurrent).RFC 1327 has been widely adopted, and a review team was formed. This comprised of: Urs Eppenberger (SWITCH)(Chair); Claudio Allocchio (INFN); Harald Alvestrand (UNINETT); Dave Crocker (Brandenburg); Ned Freed (Innosoft); Erik Huizer (SURFnet); Steve Kille (Isode); Peter Sylvester (GC Tech).Kille Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Harald Alvestrand also supplied the tables mapping DSN status codes with X.400 codes. Ned Freed defined parts of the File Transfer Body Part mapping. Comment and input has also been received from: Bengt Ackzell (Generic Systems); Samir Albadine (Transpac); Mark Boyes (DEC); Larry Campbell (Boston Software Works); Jacqui Caren (Cray); Allan Cargille (MCI); Kevin Carrosso (Innosoft); Charlie Combs (OIW); Jim Craigie (Net- Tel); Eamon Doyle (Isocor); Efifion Edem (SITA); Jyrki Heikkinen (ICL); Edward Hibbert (DCL); Jeroun Houttin (Terena); Kevin Jordan (CDS); Paul Kingsnorth (DEC); Carl-Uno Manros (Manros Consulting); Suzan Mendes (Telis); Robert Miles (Softswitch); Roger Mizumorri (Enterprise Solutions Ltd); Keith Moore (University of Tennessee); Ruth Moulton (Net-Tel) Michel Musy (Bull); Kenji Nonaka (NTT): The OIW MHSIG; Tom Oliphant (SWITCH); Julian Onions (NEXOR); Jacob Palme (KTH); Olivier Paridaens (ULB); Mary la Roche (Citicorp); John Setsaas (Maxware); Russell Sharpe (DCL); Patrick Soulier (CCETT); Eftimios Tsigros (Universite Libre de Bruxelles); Sean Turner (IECA); Mark Wahl (Isode); David Wilson (Isode); Bill Wohler (Worldtalk); Alan Young (Isode); Alain Zahm (Telis).Chapter 2 - Service Elements This chapter considers the services offered across a gateway built according to this specification. It gives a view of the functionality provided by such a gateway for communication with users in the opposite domain. This chapter considers service mappings in the context of SINGLE transfers only, and not repeated mappings through multiple gateways.2.1. The Notion of Service Across a GatewayRFC 822 and X.400 provide a number of services to the end user. This chapter describes the extent to which each service can be supported across an X.400 <->RFC 822 gateway. The cases considered are single transfers across such a gateway, although the problems of multiple crossings are noted where appropriate.2.1.1. Origination of Messages When a user originates a message, a number of services are available. Some of these imply actions (e.g., delivery to a recipient), and some are insertion of known data (e.g., specification of a subject field). This chapter describes, for each offered service, to what extent it is supported for a recipient accessed through a gateway. There are three levels of support:Kille Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Supported The corresponding protocol elements map well, and so the service can be fully provided. Not Supported The service cannot be provided, as there is a complete mismatch. Partial Support The service can be partially fulfilled. In the first two cases, the service is simply marked as "Supported" or "Not Supported". Some explanation may be given if there are additional implications, or the (non) support is not intuitive. For partial support, the level of partial support is summarised. Where partial support is good, this will be described by a phrase such as "Supported by use of.....". A common case of this is where the service is mapped onto a non-standard service on the other side of the gateway, and this would have lead to support if it had been a standard service. In many cases, this is equivalent to support. For partial support, an indication of the mechanism is given, in order to give a feel for the level of support provided. Note that this is not a replacement for Chapter 5, where the mapping is fully specified. If a service is described as supported, this implies: - Semantic correspondence. - No (significant) loss of information. - Any actions required by the service element. An example of a service gaining full support: If anRFC 822 originator specifies a Subject: field, this is considered to be supported, as an X.400 recipient will get a subject indication. In many cases, the required action will simply be to make the information available to the end user. In other cases, actions may imply generating a delivery report. AllRFC 822 services are supported or partially supported for origination. The implications of non-supported X.400 services is described under X.400.2.1.2. Reception of Messages For reception, the list of service elements required to support this mapping is specified. This is really an indication of what a recipient might expect to see in a message which has been remotelyKille Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 originated.2.2.RFC 822RFC 822 does not explicitly define service elements, as distinct from protocol elements. However, all of theRFC 822 header fields, with the exception of trace, can be regarded as corresponding to implicitRFC 822 service elements.2.2.1. Origination inRFC 822 A mechanism of mapping, used in several cases, is to map theRFC 822 header into a heading extension in the IPM (InterPersonal Message). This can be regarded as partial support, as it makes the information available to any X.400 implementations which are interested in these services. Communities which require significantRFC 822 interworking are recommended to require that their X.400 User Agents are able to display these heading extensions. Support for the various service elements (headers) is now listed. Date: Supported. From: Supported. For messages where there is also a sender field, the mapping is to "Authorising Users Indication", which has subtly different semantics to the generalRFC 822 usage of From:. Sender: Supported. Reply-To: Supported. To: Supported. Cc: Supported. Bcc: Supported. Message-Id: Supported. In-Reply-To: Supported, for a single reference. Where multiple references are given, partial support is given by mapping to "Cross Referencing Indication". This gives similar semantics. References: Supported.Kille Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Keywords: Supported by use of a heading extension. Subject: Supported. Comments: Supported by use of a heading extension. Encrypted: Supported by use of a heading extension. Content-Language: Supported. Resent-* Supported by use of a heading extension. Note that addresses in these fields are mapped onto text, and so are not accessible to the X.400 user as addresses. In principle, fuller support would be possible by mapping onto a forwarded IP Message, but this is not suggested. Other Fields In particular X-* fields, and "illegal" fields in common usage (e.g., "Fruit-of-the-day:") are supported by use of heading extensions. MIME introduces a number of headings. Support is defined inRFC2157.2.2.2. Reception byRFC 822 This considers reception by anRFC 822 User Agent of a message originated in an X.400 system and transferred across a gateway. The following standard services (headers) may be present in such a message: Date: From: Sender: Reply-To: To: Cc: Bcc:Kille Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Content-Type: (SeeRFC 2157) Content-Transfer-Encoding: (SeeRFC 2157) MIME-Version: (SeeRFC 2157) The following services (headers) may be present in the header of a message. These are defined in more detail in Chapter 5 (5.3.4, 5.3.6, 5.3.7): Autoforwarded: Autosubmitted: X400-Content-Identifier: Content-Language: Conversion: Conversion-With-Loss: Delivery-Date: Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions: Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions: DL-Expansion-History: Deferred-Delivery: Expires: Importance: Incomplete-Copy: Latest-Delivery-Time:Kille Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Message-Type: Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Originator-Return-Address: Priority: Reply-By: Sensitivity: Supersedes: X400-Content-Type: X400-MTS-Identifier: X400-Originator: X400-Received: X400-Recipients:2.3. X.4002.3.1. Origination in X.400 When mapping services from X.400 toRFC 822 which are not supported byRFC 822, newRFC 822 headers are defined, and registered by publication in this standard. It is intended that co-operatingRFC822 systems may also use them. Where these new fields are used, and no system action is implied, the service can be regarded as being partially supported. Chapter 5 describes how to map X.400 services onto these new headers. Other elements are provided, in part, by the gateway as they cannot be provided byRFC 822. Some service elements are marked N/A (not applicable). There are five cases, which are marked with different comments: N/A (local) These elements are only applicable to User Agent / Message Transfer Agent interaction and so they cannot apply toRFC 822 recipients.Kille Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 N/A (PDAU) These service elements are only applicable where the recipient is reached by use of a Physical Delivery Access Unit (PDAU), and so do not need to be mapped by the gateway. N/A (reception) These services are only applicable for reception. N/A (prior) If requested, this service shall be performed prior to the gateway. N/A (MS) These services are only applicable to Message Store (i.e., a local service). Finally, some service elements are not supported. In particular, the new security services are not mapped ontoRFC 822. Unless otherwise indicated, the behaviour of service elements marked as not supported will depend on the criticality marking supplied by the user. If the element is marked as critical for transfer or delivery, a non- delivery notification will be generated. Otherwise, the service request will be ignored.2.3.1.1. Basic Interpersonal Messaging Service These are the mandatory IPM services as listed inSection 19.8 of X.400 / ISO/IEC 10021-1, listed here in the order given.Section 19.8 has cross references to short definitions of each service. Access management N/A (local). Content Type Indication Supported by a newRFC 822 header (X400-Content-Type:). Converted Indication Supported by a newRFC 822 header (X400-Received:). Delivery Time Stamp Indication N/A (reception). IP Message Identification Supported. Message Identification Supported, by use of a newRFC 822 header (X400-MTS-Identifier). This new header is required, as X.400 has two message-ids whereasKille Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998RFC 822 has only one (see IP Message Identification Non-delivery Notification Not supported in all cases. Supported where the recipient system supports NOTARY DSNs. In general allRFC 822 systems will return error reports by use of IP messages. In other service elements, this pragmatic result can be treated as effective support of this service element. Original Encoded Information Types Indication Supported as a newRFC 822 header (Original-Encoded-Information- Types:). Submission Time Stamp Indication Supported. Typed Body Support is defined inRFC 2157. User Capabilities Registration N/A (local).2.3.1.2. IPM Service Optional User Facilities This section describes support for the optional (user selectable) IPM services as listed inSection 19.9 of X.400 / ISO/IEC 10021- 1, listed here in the order given.Section 19.9 has cross references to short definitions of each service. Additional Physical Rendition N/A (PDAU). Alternate Recipient Allowed Not supported. There is noRFC 822 service equivalent to prohibition of alternate recipient assignment (e.g., anRFC 822 system may freely send an undeliverable message to a local postmaster). A MIXER gateway has two conformant options. The first is not to gateway a message requesting prohibition of alternate recipient, as this control cannot be guaranteed. This option supports the service, but may cause unacceptable level of message rejections. The second is to gateway the message on the basis that there is no alternate recipient service inRFC 822.RFC1327 allowed only the second option. If the first option is shown to be operationally effective, it may be the only option in future versions of MIXER. Authorising User's Indication Supported.Kille Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Auto-forwarded Indication Supported as newRFC 822 header (Auto-Forwarded:). Basic Physical Rendition N/A (PDAU). Blind Copy Recipient Indication Supported. Body Part Encryption Indication Supported by use of a newRFC 822 header (Original-Encoded- Information-Types:), although in most cases it will not be possible to map the body part in question. Content Confidentiality Not supported. Content Integrity Not supported. Conversion Prohibition Supported. Operation defined inRFC 2157. Conversion Prohibition in Case of Loss of Information Supported. Operation defined inRFC 2157. Counter Collection N/A (PDAU). Counter Collection with Advice N/A (PDAU). Cross Referencing Indication Supported. Deferred Delivery N/A (prior). This service shall always be provided by the MTS prior to the gateway. A newRFC 822 header (Deferred-Delivery:) is provided to transfer information on this service to the recipient. Deferred Delivery Cancellation N/A (local). Delivery Notification Supported. This is performed at the gateway, but may be performed at the end system if the end system supports NOTARY. Thus, a notification is sent by the gateway to the originator.Kille Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Delivery via Bureaufax Service N/A (PDAU). Designation of Recipient by Directory Name N/A (local). Disclosure of Other Recipients Supported by use of a newRFC 822 header (X400-Recipients:). This is descriptive information for theRFC 822 recipient, and is not reverse mappable. DL Expansion History Indication Supported by use of a newRFC 822 header (DL-Expansion-History:). DL Expansion Prohibited Distribution List means MTS supported distribution list, in the manner of X.400. This service does not exist in theRFC 822 world, althoughRFC 822 supports distribution list functionality. There is no SMTP leve control to prohibit distribution list expansion. A MIXER gateway has two conformant options. The first is not to gateway a message requesting DL expansion prohibition, as this control cannot be guaranteed. This option supports the service, but may cause unacceptable level of message rejections. The second is to gateway the message on the basis that there is no distribution list service inRFC 822.RFC 1327 allowed only the second option. If the first option is shown to be operationally effective, it may be the only option in future versions of MIXER. Express Mail Service N/A (PDAU). Expiry Date Indication Supported as newRFC 822 header (Expires:). In general, no automatic action can be expected. Explicit Conversion N/A (prior). Forwarded IP Message Indication Supported. Grade of Delivery Selection Not Supported. There is no equivalent service inRFC 822. Importance Indication Supported as newRFC 822 header (Importance:).Kille Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Incomplete Copy Indication Supported as newRFC 822 header (Incomplete-Copy:). Language Indication Supported as newRFC 822 header (Content-Language:). Latest Delivery Designation Not supported. A newRFC 822 header (Latest-Delivery-Time:) is provided, which may be used by the recipient for general information, but will not be acted on by the SMTP infrastrucuture. Message Flow Confidentiality Not supported. Message Origin Authentication N/A (reception). Message Security Labelling Not supported. Message Sequence Integrity Not supported. Multi-Destination Delivery Supported. Multi-part Body Supported. Non Receipt Notification Request Not supported. Non Repudiation of Delivery Not supported. Non Repudiation of Origin N/A (reception). Non Repudiation of Submission N/A (local). Obsoleting Indication Supported as newRFC 822 header (Supersedes:). Ordinary Mail N/A (PDAU). Originator Indication Supported.Kille Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Originator Requested Alternate Recipient Not supported, but is placed as comment next to address (X400- Recipients:). Physical Delivery Notification by MHS N/A (PDAU). Physical Delivery Notification by PDS N/A (PDAU). Physical Forwarding Allowed Supported by use of a comment in a newRFC 822 header (X400- Recipients:), associated with the recipient in question. Physical Forwarding Prohibited Supported by use of a comment in a newRFC 822 header (X400- Recipients:), associated with the recipient in question. Prevention of Non-delivery notification Supported where SMTP and NOTARY are available. In other cases formally supported, as delivery notifications cannot be generated byRFC 822. In practice, errors will be returned as IP Messages, and so this service may appear not to be supported (see Non- delivery Notification). Primary and Copy Recipients Indication Supported Probe Supported at the gateway (i.e., the gateway services the probe). Probe Origin Authentication N/A (reception). Proof of Delivery Not supported. Proof of Submission N/A (local). Receipt Notification Request Indication Not supported.Kille Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Redirection Disallowed by Originator Redirection means MTS supported redirection, in the manner of X.400. This service does not exist in theRFC 822 world.RFC 822 redirection (e.g., aliasing) is regarded as an informal redirection mechanism, beyond the scope of this control. Messages will be sent toRFC 822, irrespective of whether this service is requested. In practice, control of this service is not supported. Registered Mail N/A (PDAU). Registered Mail to Addressee in Person N/A (PDAU). Reply Request Indication Supported as comment next to address. Replying IP Message Indication Supported. Report Origin Authentication N/A (reception). Request for Forwarding Address N/A (PDAU). Requested Delivery Method N/A (local). The service request is dealt with at submission time. Any such request is made available through the gateway by use of a comment associated with the recipient in question. Return of Content Supported where SMTP and NOTARY are used. In principle for other situations, this is N/A, as non-delivery notifications are not supported. In practice, mostRFC 822 systems will return part or all of the content along with the IP Message indicating an error (see Non-delivery Notification). Sensitivity Indication Supported as newRFC 822 header (Sensitivity:). Special Delivery N/A (PDAU). Stored Message Deletion N/A (MS).Kille Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Stored Message Fetching N/A (MS). Stored Message Listing N/A (MS). Stored Message Summary N/A (MS). Subject Indication Supported. Undeliverable Mail with Return of Physical Message N/A (PDAU). Use of Distribution List In principle this applies only to X.400 supported distribution lists (see DL Expansion Prohibited). Theoretically, this service is N/A (prior). In practice, because of informalRFC 822 lists, this service can be regarded as supported. Auto-Submitted Indication Supported2.3.2. Reception by X.4002.3.2.1. Standard Mandatory Services The following standard IPM mandatory user facilities are required for reception ofRFC 822 originated mail by an X.400 UA. Content Type Indication Delivery Time Stamp Indication IP Message Identification Message Identification Non-delivery Notification Original Encoded Information Types Indication Submission Time Stamp Indication Typed BodyKille Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19982.3.2.2. Standard Optional Services The following standard IPM optional user facilities are required for reception ofRFC 822 originated mail by an X.400 UA. Authorising User's Indication Blind Copy Recipient Indication Cross Referencing Indication Originator Indication Primary and Copy Recipients Indication Replying IP Message Indication Subject Indication2.3.2.3. New Services A new X.400 service "RFC 822 Header Field" is defined using the extension facilities. This allows for anyRFC 822 header field to be represented. It may be present inRFC 822 originated messages which are received by an X.400 UA.Chapter 3 Basic Mappings3.1. Notation The X.400 protocols are encoded in a structured manner according to ASN.1, whereasRFC 822 is text encoded. To define a detailed mapping, it is necessary to refer to detailed protocol elements in each format. A notation to achieve this is described in this section.3.1.1.RFC 822 Structured text is defined according to the Extended Backus Naur Form (EBNF) defined inSection 2 of RFC 822 [16]. In the EBNF definitions used in this specification, the syntax rules given inAppendix D of RFC 822 are assumed. When these EBNF tokens are referred to outside an EBNF definition, they are identified by the string "822." appended to the beginning of the string (e.g., 822.addr-spec). Additional syntax rules, to be used throughout this specification, are defined in this chapter. The EBNF is used in two ways.Kille Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 1. To describe components ofRFC 822 messages (or of SMTP components). When these new EBNF tokens are referred to outside an EBNF definition, they are identified by the string "EBNF." appended to the beginning of the string (e.g., EBNF.importance). 2. To describe the structure of IA5 or ASCII information not in anRFC 822 message. For all new EBNF, tokens will either be self delimiting, or be delimited by self delimiting tokens. Comments and LWSP are not used as delimiters, except for the following cases, where LWSP may be inserted according toRFC 822 rules. - Around the ":" in all headers - EBNF.labelled-integer - EBNF.object-identifier - EBNF.encoded-infoRFC 822 folding rules are applied to all headers. Comments are never used in these new headers. This notation is used in a modified form to refer to NOTARY EBNF [28]. For this EBNF, the keyword EBNF it replaces with DSN, for example DSN.final-recipient-field fields.3.1.2. ASN.1 An element is referred to with the following syntax, defined in EBNF: element = service "." definition *( "." definition ) service = "IPMS" / "MTS" / "MTA" definition = identifier / context identifier = ALPHA *< ALPHA or DIGIT or "-" > context = "[" 1*DIGIT "]" The EBNF.service keys are shorthand for the following service specifications: IPMS IPMSInformationObjects defined in Annex E of X.420 / ISO 10021- 7. MTS MTSAbstractService defined inSection 9 of X.411 / ISO 10021-4. TA MTAAbstractService defined inSection 13 of X.411 / ISO 10021-4.Kille Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 FTBP File Transfer Body Part, as defined in [27]. The first EBNF.identifier identifies a type or value key in the context of the defined service specification. Subsequent EBNF.identifiers identify a value label or type in the context of the first identifier (SET or SEQUENCE). EBNF.context indicates a context tag, and is used where there is no label or type to uniquely identify a component. The special EBNF.identifier keyword "value" is used to denote an element of a sequence. For example, IPMS.Heading.subject defines the subject element of the IPMS heading. The same syntax is also used to refer to element values. For example, MTS.EncodedInformationTypes.[0].g3Fax refers to a value of MTS.EncodedInformationTypes.[0] .3.2. ASCII and IA5 A gateway will interpret all IA5 as ASCII. Thus, mapping between these forms is conceptual.3.3. Standard Types There is a need to convert between ASCII text and some of the types defined in ASN.1 [14]. For each case, an EBNF syntax definition is given, for use in all of this specification, which leads to a mapping between ASN.1, and an EBNF construct. All EBNF syntax definitions of ASN.1 types are in lower case, whereas ASN.1 types are referred to with the first letter in upper case. Except as noted, all mappings are symmetrical.3.3.1. Boolean Boolean is encoded as: boolean = "TRUE" / "FALSE"3.3.2. NumericString NumericString is encoded as: numericstring = *(DIGIT / " ")Kille Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19983.3.3. PrintableString PrintableString is a restricted IA5String defined as: printablestring = *( ps-char ) ps-restricted-char = 1DIGIT / 1ALPHA / " " / "'" / "+" / "," / "-" / "." / "/" / ":" / "=" / "?" ps-delim = "(" / ")" ps-char = ps-delim / ps-restricted-char This can be used to represent real printable strings in EBNF.3.3.4. T.61String In cases where T.61 strings are only used for conveying human interpreted information, the aim of a mapping is to render the characters appropriately in the remote character set, rather than to maximise reversibility. For these cases, there are two options, both of which are conformant to this specification: 1. The mappings to IA5 defined in ITU-T Recommendation X.408 (1988) may be used [13]. These will then be encoded in ASCII. This is the approach mandated inRFC 1327. 2. This mapping may be used if the characters are not contained within ASCII repertoire, but are all in an IANA-registered character set. Use the encoding defined inRFC 1522 [9] to generate appropriate encoded-words. If this mapping is used, the character set ISO-8859-1 shall be used if all of the characters needed are available in this repertoire. In other cases, the character set TELETEX shall be used. The details of this character set is defined in theAppendix C of RFC 2157. There is also a need to represent Teletex Strings in ASCII, for some aspects of OR Address. For these, the following encoding is used: teletex-string = *( ps-char / t61-encoded ) t61-encoded = "{" 1* t61-encoded-char "}" t61-encoded-char = 3DIGIT Characters in EBNF.ps-char are mapped simply. Other octets, including control characters, are mapped using a quoting mechanism similar to the printable string mechanism. Each octet is represented as 3 decimal digits. For example, the Yen character (hex A5) is represented as {165}. As the three character string, a, yen character, b, would be represented as either "a{165}b".Kille Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The use of escape sequences follows that set down for ASN1. in ISO 8825-1, with the additional specifiction that the default G1 page is ISO Latin 1. The page settings may be changed by escape sequences. Changes of the settings hold within a pair of curly brackets ({}), and the settings revert to the default after the right bracket (}) (i.e., they do not carry forward to subsequent T.61 encoding). There are a number of places where a string may have a Teletex and/or Printable String representation. The following EBNF is used to represent this. teletex-and-or-ps = [ printablestring ] [ "*" teletex-string ] The natural mapping is restricted to EBNF.ps-char, in order to make the full BNF easier to parse. An example is: "yen*{165}"3.3.5. UTCTime Both UTCTime and theRFC 822 822.date-time syntax contain: Year, Month, Day of Month, hour, minute, second (optional), and Timezone (technically a time differential in UTCTime). 822.date-time also contains an optional day of the week, but this is redundant. With the exception of Year, a symmetrical mapping can be made between these constructs. Note: In practice, a gateway will need to parse various illegal variants on 822.date-time. In cases where 822.date-time cannot be parsed, it is recommended that the derived UTCTime is set to the value at the time of translation. Such errors may be noted in anRFC 822 comment, to aid detection and correction. When mapping to X.400, the UTCTime format which specifies the timezone offset shall be used. When mapping toRFC 822, the 822.date-time format shall include a numeric timezone offset (e.g., -0500). When mapping time values, the timezone shall be preserved as specified. The date shall not be normalised to any other timezone.Kille Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998RFC 822, as modified byRFC 1123, requires use of a four digit year. Note that the originalRFC 822 uses a two digit date, which is no longer legal. UTCTime uses a two digit date. To map a year fromRFC822 to X.400, simply use the last two digits. To map a year from X.400 toRFC 822, assume that the two digit year refers to a year in the 10 year epoch 1980-2079.3.3.6. Integer A basic ASN.1 Integer will be mapped onto EBNF.numericstring. In many cases ASN.1 will enumerate Integer values or use ENUMERATED. An EBNF encoding labelled-integer is provided. When mapping from EBNF to ASN.1, only the integer value is mapped, and the associated text is discarded. When mapping from ASN.1 to EBNF, a text label may be added. It is recommended that this is done wherever possible and that clear text labels are chosen. A second encoding labelled-integer-2 is provided. This is used in DSNs, where the parsing rules will treat the text as a comment. This definition was not present inRFC 1327. labelled-integer ::= [ key-string ] "(" numericstring ")" labelled-integer-2 ::= [ numericstring ] "(" key-string ")" key-string = *key-char key-char = <a-z, A-Z, 0-9, and "-">3.3.7. Object Identifier Object identifiers are represented in a form similar to that given in ASN.1. The order is the same as for ASN.1 (big-endian). The numbers are mandatory, and used when mapping from the ASCII to ASN.1. The key-strings are optional. It is recommended that as many strings as possible are generated when mapping from ASN.1 to ASCII, to facilitate user recognition. object-identifier ::= oid-comp object-identifier | oid-comp oid-comp ::= [ key-string ] "(" numericstring ")"Kille Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 An example representation of an object identifier is: joint-iso-ccitt(2) mhs (6) ipms (1) ep (11) ia5-text (0) or (2) (6) (1)(11)(0) Because of the use of brackets and the conflict with theRFC 822 comment convention, MIXER is defines so that the EBNFobject- identifier definition is not used in structured fields.3.4. Encoding ASCII in Printable String Some information inRFC 822 is represented in ASCII, and needs to be mapped into X.400 elements encoded as printable string. For this reason, a mechanism to represent ASCII encoded as PrintableString is needed. A structured subset of EBNF.printablestring is now defined. This shall be used to encode ASCII in the PrintableString character set. ps-encoded = *( ps-restricted-char / ps-encoded-char ) ps-encoded-char = "(a)" ; (@) / "(p)" ; (%) / "(b)" ; (!) / "(q)" ; (") / "(u)" ; (_) / "(l)" ; "(" / "(r)" ; ")" / "(" 3DIGIT ")" The 822.3DIGIT in EBNF.ps-encoded-char shall have range 0-127, and is interpreted in decimal as the corresponding ASCII character. Special encodings are given for: at sign (@), percent (%), exclamation mark/bang (!), double quote ("), underscore (_), left bracket ((), and right bracket ()). These characters, with the exception of round brackets, are not included in PrintableString, but are common inRFC822 addresses. The abbreviations will ease specification ofRFC 822 addresses from an X.400 system. These special encodings shall be interpreted in a case insensitive manner, but always generated in lower case. A reversible mapping between PrintableString and ASCII can now be defined. The reversibility means that some values of printable string (containing round braces) cannot be generated from ASCII. Therefore, this mapping shall only be used in cases where the printable strings have been derived from ASCII (and will thereforeKille Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 have a restricted domain). For example, in this specification, it is only applied to a Domain Defined Attribute which will have been generated by use of this specification and a value such as "(" would not be possible. To encode ASCII as PrintableString, the EBNF.ps-encoded syntax is used, with all EBNF.ps-restricted-char mapped directly. All other 822.CHAR are encoded as EBNF.ps-encoded-char. To encode PrintableString as ASCII, parse PrintableString as EBNF.ps-encoded, and then reverse the previous mapping. If the PrintableString cannot be parsed, then the mapping is being applied in to an inappropriate value, and an error shall be given to the procedure doing the mapping. In some cases, it may be preferable to pass the printable string through unaltered. Some examples are now given. Note the arrows which indicate asymmetrical mappings: PrintableString ASCII 'a demo.' <-> 'a demo.' foo(a)bar <-> foo@bar (q)(u)(p)(q) <-> "_%" (a) <-> @ (A) -> @ (l)a(r) <-> (a) (126) <-> ~ ( -> ( (l) <-> (3.5.RFC 1522RFC 1522 defines a mechanism for encoding other character set information into elements ofRFC 822 Headers. A gateway may ignore this encoding and treat the elements as ASCII. A preferred approach is for the gateway to interpret theRFC 1522 encoding. This will not always be straightforward, because: 1.RFC 1522 permits an openly extensible character set choice, which may be broader than T.61. 2. It is not always possible to map all characters into the equivalent X.400 field.RFC 1522 is only applied to fields which are "for information only". A gateway which interprets header elements according toRFC 1522 mayKille Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 apply reasonable heuristics to minimise information loss.Chapter 4 - Addressing and Message IDs Addressing is the most complex aspect of X.400 <->RFC 822 gateway and is therefore given a separate chapter. This chapter also discusses message identifiers, as they are closely linked to addresses. This chapter, as a side effect, also defines a textual representation of an X.400 OR Address. This specification has much similarity to the X.400(92) representation of addresses. This was because early versions of this specification were a major input to this work. This specification retains compatibility with earlier versions. The X.400 specification of address representation can be parsed but is not generated. Initially we consider an address in the (human) mail user sense of "what is typed at the mailsystem to reference a mail user". A basicRFC 822 address is defined by the EBNF EBNF.822-address: 822-address = [ route ] addr-spec These definitions are taken fromRFC 822. In SMTP (or another 822- MTS protocol), the originator and each recipient are considered to be defined by such a construct. In anRFC 822 header, the EBNF.822- address is encapsulated in the 822-address syntax rule, and there may also be associated comments. None of this extra information has any semantics, other than to the end user. The basic X.400 OR Address, used by the MTS for routing, is defined by MTS.ORAddress. In IPMS, the MTS.ORAddress is encapsulated within IPMS.ORDescriptor. TheRFC 822 822.address is mapped with IPMS.ORDescriptor, and thatRFC 822 EBNF.822-address is mapped with MTS.ORAddress.Section 4.1 defines a textual representation of an OR Address, which is used throughout the rest of this specification. This text representation is designed to represent an X.400 address in the LHS (left hand side) or local part of anRFC 822 address, and so this representation gives a mechanism to represent X.400 addresses withinRFC 822 addresses.Section 4.2 describes global equivalence mapping between parts of the X.400 andRFC 822 name spaces, and defines the concept of a MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM). Gateways conforming to this specification shall support MCGAMs.Kille Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Section 4.3 is the core part of this chapter, and defines the mapping mechanism.4.1. A textual representation of MTS.ORAddress MTS.ORAddress is structured as an ordered set of attributes (type/value pairs). It is clearly necessary to be able to encode this in ASCII for gatewaying purposes. All components shall be encoded, in order to guarantee return of error messages, and to optimise third party replies.4.1.1. Basic OR Address Representation An OR Address has a number of structured and unstructured attributes. For each unstructured attribute, a key and an encoding is specified. For structured attributes, the X.400 attribute is mapped onto one or more attribute value pairs. For domain defined attributes, each element of the sequence will be mapped onto a triple (key and two values), with each value having the same encoding. The attributes are as follows, with 1984 attributes given in the first part of the attribute key table. For each attribute, a reference is given, consisting of the relevant sections in X.402 / ISO 10021-2, and the extension identifier for 88 only attributes. The attribute key table follows:Attribute (Component) Key Enc Ref Id84/88 AttributesMTS.CountryName C P 18.3.3MTS.AdministrationDomainName ADMD P 18.3.1MTS.PrivateDomainName PRMD P 18.3.21MTS.NetworkAddress X121 N 18.3.7MTS.TerminalIdentifier T-ID P 18.3.23MTS.OrganizationName O P/T 18.3.9MTS.OrganizationalUnitNames.value OU P/T 18.3.10MTS.NumericUserIdentifier UA-ID N 18.3.8MTS.PersonalName PN P/T 18.3.12MTS.PersonalName.surname S P/T 18.3.12MTS.PersonalName.given-name G P/T 18.3.12MTS.PersonalName.initials I P/T 18.3.12MTS.PersonalName .generation-qualifier GQ P/T 18.3.12MTS.DomainDefineAttribute.value DD P/T 18.1Kille Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 199888 AttributesMTS.CommonName CN P/T 18.3.2 1MTS.TeletexCommonName CN P/T 18.3.2 2MTS.TeletexOrganizationName O P/T 18.3.9 3MTS.TeletexPersonalName PN P/T 18.3.12 4MTS.TeletexPersonalName.surname S P/T 18.3.12 4MTS.TeletexPersonalName.given-name G P/T 18.3.12 4MTS.TeletexPersonalName.initials I P/T 18.3.12 4MTS.TeletexPersonalName .generation-qualifier GQ P/T 18.3.12 4MTS.TeletexOrganizationalUnitNames .value OU P/T 18.3.10 5MTS.TeletexDomainDefinedAttribute .value DD P/T 18.1 6MTS.PDSName PD-SERVICE P 18.3.11 7MTS.PhysicalDeliveryCountryName PD-C P 18.3.13 8MTS.PostalCode PD-CODE P 18.3.19 9MTS.PhysicalDeliveryOfficeName PD-OFFICE P/T 18.3.14 10MTS.PhysicalDeliveryOfficeNumber PD-OFFICE-NUM P/T 18.3.15 11MTS.ExtensionORAddressComponents PD-EXT-ADDRESS P/T 18.3.4 12MTS.PhysicalDeliveryPersonName PD-PN P/T 18.3.17 13MTS.PhysicalDeliveryOrganizationName PD-O P/T 18.3.16 14MTS.ExtensionPhysicalDelivery AddressComponents PD-EXT-DELIVERY P/T 18.3.5 15MTS.UnformattedPostalAddress PD-ADDRESS UPA 18.3.25 16MTS.StreetAddress PD-STREET P/T 18.3.22 17MTS.PostOfficeBoxAddress PD-BOX P/T 18.3.18 18MTS.PosteRestanteAddress PD-RESTANTE P/T 18.3.20 19MTS.UniquePostalName PD-UNIQUE P/T 18.3.26 20MTS.LocalPostalAttributes PD-LOCAL P/T 18.3.6 21MTS.ExtendedNetworkAddress .e163-4-address.number NET-NUM N 18.3.7 22MTS.ExtendedNetworkAddress .e163-4-address.sub-address NET-SUB N 18.3.7 22MTS.ExtendedNetworkAddress .psap-address NET-PSAP X 18.3.7 22MTS.TerminalType T-TY I 18.3.24 23Kille Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The following keys identify different EBNF encodings, which are associated with the ASCII representation of MTS.ORAddress. Key Encoding P printablestring N numericstring T teletex-string P/T teletex-and-or-ps UPA upa-string I labelled-integer X presentation-address The EBNF for presentation-address is taken from the specificationRFC1278 "A String Encoding of Presentation Address" [23]. In most cases, the EBNF encoding maps directly to the ASN.1 encoding of the attribute. There are a few exceptions. In cases where an attribute can be encoded as either a PrintableString or NumericString (Country, ADMD, PRMD), either form is mapped into the EBNF. When generating ASN.1, the NumericString encoding shall be used if the string contains digits and only digits. There are a number of cases where the P/T (teletex-and-or-ps) representation is used. Where the key maps to a single attribute, this choice is reflected in the encoding of the attribute (attributes 10-21). For example: /CN=yen*{165}/ For most of the 1984 attributes and common name, there is a printablestring and a teletex variant. This pair of attributes is mapped onto the single component here. This will give a clean mapping for the common cases where only one form of the name is used. If there is teletex attribute or teletex component only, and it contains only characters in the printable string character set, it shall be represented in the EBNF as if it had been encoded as printable string. A single printable string representation shall also be done when both forms are present and they have the same printable string representation. The Unformatted Postal Address has a slightly more complex mapping onto a variant of (teletex-and-or-ps), defined as: upa-string = [ printable-upa ] [ "*" teletex-string ] printable-upa = printablestring *( "|" printablestring )Kille Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The optional teletex part is straightforward. There is an (optional) sequence of printable strings which are mapped in order. For example: /PD-ADDRESS=The Dome|The Square|Richmond|England/ X.400 (1992) has introduced a string representation of OR Addresses (see F.401, Annex B). This has specified a number of string keywords for attributes. As earlier versions of this specification were an input to this work, many of the keywords are the same. To increase compatibility, the following alternative values shall be recognised when mapping fromRFC 822 to X.400. These shall not be generated when mapping from X.400 toRFC 822. The following keyword alternative table and the subsequent paragraph lists alternative keywords. Keyword Alternative ADMD A PRMD P GQ Q X121 X.121 UA-ID N-ID PD-OFFICE-NUM PD-OFFICE NUMBER PD-OFFICE-NUM PD-OFN PD-EXT-ADDRESS PD-EA PD-EXT-DELIVERY PD-ED PD-OFFICE PD-OF PD-STREET PD-S PD-UNIQUE PD-U PD-LOCAL PD-L PD-RESTANTE PD-R PD-BOX PD-B PD-CODE PD-PC PD-SERVICE PD-SN DD DDA NET-NUM E.164 NET-PSAP PSAP PD-ADDRESS PD-A When mapping fromRFC 822 to X.400, the keywords defined in this paragraph shall be recognized. The ordered keywords: OU1, OU2, OU3, and OU4, shall be recognised. If these are present, no keyword OU shall be present. These will be treated as ordered values of OU. PD-A1, PD-A2, PD-A3, PD-A4, PD-A5, PD-A6 shall be treated as ordered lines. If present, these will be assembled with separating line feeds to form a single physical address. InKille Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 this case PD-ADDRESS (or PD-A) shall not be present. Similarly, there are ordered keywords for domain defined attributes: DD1, DD2, DD3, DD4, If ISDN is present, it may be interpreted as an E.163/164 address, using local heuristics to parse the string. X.400 defines the key, but does not give an interpretation of the value. For T-TY (Terminal Type), the X.400 recommended values are preferred, but other values are allowed. These values are: tlx (3); ttx (4); g3fax (5); g4fax (6); ia5 (7); and vtx (8).4.1.2. Encoding of Personal Name Handling of Personal Name and Teletex Personal Name is a common requirement. Therefore MIXER defines an alternative to the EBNF.standard-type syntax, which utilises the "human" conventions for encoding these components. A syntax is defined, which is designed to provide a clean encoding for the common cases of OR Address specification where: 1. There is no generational qualifier 2. Initials, if present, contain only letters 3. Given Name, if present, does not contain full stop ("."), and is at least two characters long. 4. Surname does not contain full stop in the first two characters. 5 If Surname is the only component, it does not contain full stop. The following EBNF is defined: encoded-pn = [ given "." ] *( initial "." ) surname given = 2*<ps-char not including "."> initial = ALPHA surname = printablestringKille Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 This is used to map from any string containing only printable string characters to an OR address personal name. To map from a string to OR Address components, parse the string according to the EBNF. The given name and surname are assigned directly. All EBNF.initial tokens are concatenated without intervening full stops to generate the initials component. For an OR address which follows the above restrictions, a string is derived in the natural manner. In this case, the mapping will be reversible. For example: GivenName = "Marshall" Surname = "Rose" Maps with "Marshall.Rose" Initials = "MT" Surname = "Rose" Maps with "M.T.Rose" GivenName = "Marshall" Initials = "MT" Surname = "Rose" Maps with "Marshall.M.T.Rose" Note that X.400 suggests that Initials is used to encode all initials except the surname (X.402section 18.3.12). Therefore, the defined encoding is "natural" when either GivenName or Initials, but not both, are present. The case where both are present can be encoded.4.1.3. Standard Encoding of MTS.ORAddress Given this structure, we can specify an EBNF representation of an OR Address. The output format of addresses is defined by EBNF.std-or- address. The more flexible input format is defined by EBNF.std-or- address-input. The input EBNF has been added subsequent toRFC 1327, to reflect the formal incorporation of a number of heuristics. The address element separator on input may be "/", ";", or a mixture of these. The output format is used in all examples. std-or-address = 1*( "/" attribute "=" value ) "/" attribute = standard-type / "RFC-822" / dd-key "." std-printablestringKille Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 std-or-address-input = [ sep pair ] sep pair *( sep pair ) sep [ pair sep ] sep = "/" / ";" pair = input-attribute "=" value input-attribute = attribute / dd-key ":" std-printablestring standard-type = key-string dd-key = key-string value = std-printablestring std-printablestring = *( std-char / std-pair ) std-char = <"{", "}", "*", and any ps-char except "/" and "=" > std-pair = "$" ps-char For address generation, the standard-type is any key defined in the key table inSection 4.1, except PN, and DD. For address parsing, other key values fromSection 4.1 are also valid. The EBNF leads to a set of attribute/value pairs. The value is interpreted according to the EBNF encoding defined in the table. If the standard-type is PN, the value is interpreted according to EBNF.encoded-pn, and the components of MTS.PersonalName and/or MTS.TeletexPersonalName derived accordingly. If dd-key is the recognised Domain Defined string (DD) or one of the alternatives defined inSection 4.1, then the type and value are interpreted according to the syntax implied from the encoding, and aligned to either the teletex or printable string form. Key and value shall have the same encoding. If value is "RFC-822", then the (printable string) Domain Defined Type of "RFC-822" is assumed. This is an optimised encoding of the domain defined type defined by this specification. The matching of all keywords shall be done in a case-independent manner. EBNF.std-or-address uses the characters "/" and "=" as delimiters. Domain Defined Attributes and any value may contain these characters. A quoting mechanism, using the non-printable string "$" is used to allow these characters to be represented.Kille Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 If an address of this syntax is parsed, and a country value is present, but no ADMD, the string shall be interpreted as if an ADMD value of single space had been specified.4.2. Global Address Mapping From a user perspective, the ideal mapping would be entirely symmetrical and global, to enable addresses to be referred to transparently in the remote system, with the choice of gateway being left to the Message Transfer Service. There are two fundamental reasons why this is not possible: 1. The syntaxes are sufficiently different to make this impossible. 2 There is insufficient administrative co-operation between the X.400 andRFC 822 name registration authorities for this to work. Another way to view this situation is to see that there is not a full global equivalence between X.400 andRFC 822 addressing. To meet user needs to the extent possible, this specification provides for equivalence where there is sufficient co-operation. To be useful, this equivalence shall be recognised and interpreted in the same way by all gateways. Therefore, an asymmetrical mapping is defined, which can be symmetrical where there is appropriate administrative co-operation.Section 4.3 describes the asymetrical aspects. This section describes a mechanism to enable the administrative co- ordination for symmetrical mappings. In order to achieve a symmetrical mapping there is a need to define an administrative equivalence between parts of the OR Address and Domain namespaces. Previous version of this specification did this by definition of a global set of mappings. MIXER defines the concept of a MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM). This acronym is defined so that it is very clear what is being referenced. The X.400 and Internet Mail address spaces are hierarchical. It is possible to define an equivalence between two points in the hierarchies, such that addresses below that point can be derived in an algorithmic manner. An MCGAM is a mapping from a point in one hierarchy to a point in the other hierarchy. An "MGGAM pair" is a pair of symmetrical mappings between two points. To define an MCGAM, the following shall apply: 1. The authority defining the MCGAM shall have responsibility for BOTH of the namespaces between which the MCGAM is defined.Kille Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 2. The authority defining the MCGAM is responsible to ensure that addresses allocated below the two equivalence points conform to the rules set out below. 3. The authority defining the MCGAM is responsible to ensure that addresses which are generated according to the MCGAM are routed correctly. In general, MCGAMs will be independent. In some cases, a set of MCGAMs may be related (e.g., where one MCGAM defines a mapping for an organization and a second MCGAM defines an excpetion for a subtree within the organization). In this case, the related set of MCGAMs shall be treated as a single MCGAM for distribution purposes. The existence of an MCGAM does not imply routability and access for all users. The authority defining an MCGAM may simply use this mapping locally. This will often be the case in a "local scenario" gateway. Because of third party addressing, a MIXER gateway will work best with the maximum number of MCGAMs. Therefore, three mechanisms are defined to enable publication and exchange of MCGAMs: 1. Distribution of text tables. This is described inAppendixF of this specification. 2. Distribution by Domain Name Service. This is described inRFC 2163 [3]. 3. Distribution by X.500 Directory Service. This is defined inRFC 2164 [26]. The following sections define how the MCGAM namespace equivalence is modelled. The Internet Domain Namespace defines a simple hierarchy. For the purposes of this mapping, only parts of the namespace where domains conform to the EBNF domain-syntax are allowed. domain-syntax = alphanum [ *alphanumhyphen alphanum ] alphanum = <ALPHA or DIGIT> alphanumhyphen = <ALPHA or DIGIT or HYPHEN> AlthoughRFC 822 allows for a more general syntax, this restricted syntax is used in MIXER as it is the one chosen by the various domain service administrations. In practice, it reflects allRFC 822 usage.Kille Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The following OR Address attributes are considered as a hierarchy, and may be specified by the domain. They are (in order of the hierarchy defined by MIXER): Country, ADMD, PRMD, Organization, Organizational Units There may be up to four ordered Organizational Units. This hierarchy reflects most usage of X.400, although X.400 may be used in other ways. In particular, it covers the Mnemonic OR Address using a 1984 compatible encoding. This is seen as the dominant form of OR Address. MCGAMs may only be used when this hierarchy applies. An equivalence mapping is defined between two nodes in the respective hierarchies. For example: => "AC.UK" might be mapped with PRMD="UK.AC", ADMD="GOLD 400", C="GB" The mapping identifies that the management of these points in the respective hierarchies is the same (or co-operate very closely). The equivalence means that the namespaces below this equivalence point map 1:1, except where the mapping is overridden by further equivalence mappings lower down the hierarchy. This equivalence may be achieved in three ways: 1. All of the nodes below this point areRFC 822, and the MIXER mapping defines the X.400 addresses for these nodes. 2. All of the nodes below this point are X.400, and the MIXER mapping defines theRFC 822 addresses for these nodes. 3. There are X.400 andRFC 822 nodes below this point, and addressing is managed in a manner which ensures the equivalence. The rules to achieve this are defined by MIXER. Each of these ways gives a framework for MCGAM definition. When an MCGAM is defined, a systematic mapping for the inferior nodes in the two hierarchies follows. This is a 1:1 mapping between the nodes in the subtrees. For example, given the MCGAM pair defined above: the domain "R-D.Salford.AC.UK" algorithmically maps with OU="R-D", O="Salford", PRMD="UK.AC", ADMD="GOLD 400", C="GB"Kille Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Note that when an equivalence is defined, that this can be re-defined for lower points in the hierarchy. However, it is not possible to declare contained subtrees to be un-mappable. The equivalence mapping also provides a mechanism to deal with missing elements in the X.400 hierarchy (most commonly the PRMD, which is the only element that may be ommitted when conforming to recent versions of X.400). A domain may be associated with an omitted attribute in conjunction with several present ones. When performing the algorithmic insertion of components lower in the hierarchy, the omitted value shall be skipped. For example: If there is an MCGAM pair between domain HNE.EGM" and "O=HNE", "ADMD=ECQ", "C=TC", and omitted PRMD then "ZI.HNE.EGM" is algorithmically mapped with "OU=I", "O=HNE", "ADMD=ECQ", "C=TC" Attributes may have null values, and this is treated separately from omitted attributes (while it is not ideal to make this distinction, it is useful in practice).4.2.1. Directory and Nameserver Mappings When a set of MCGAMs are supported by X.500 or DNS, there is the possibility that results will be indeterminate due to timeout. Lookup shall be repeated until a value is determined, in order to maintain consistent gateway operation. Where the mapping relates to an envelope address, the gateway shall non-deliver messages according to the associated MTA's normal timeout policy. Where the mapping relates to addresses in the message header, there shall be a timeout in the range of 1-4 hours or shorter if this is required to maintain quality of service constraints. If a mapping cannot be done in this time, address encapsulation shall be used.4.3. EBNF.822-address <-> MTS.ORAddress This section defines the basic address mapping.4.3.1. X.400 encoded inRFC 822 This section defines how X.400 addresses are represented inRFC 822 addresses.Kille Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The std-or-address syntax is used to encode OR Address information in the 822.local-part of EBNF.822-address. Where there is an applicable equivalence mapping, further OR Address information is associated with the 822.domain component. This cannot be used in the general case, due to character set problems, and to the variants of X.400 OR Addresses which use different attribute types. The only way to encode the full PrintableString character set in a domain is by use of the 822.domain-ref syntax (i.e. 822.atom). This is likely to cause problems on many systems. The effective character set of domains is in practice reduced from theRFC 822 set, by restrictions imposed by domain conventions and policy [10], and by the EBNF definition in SMTP. A generic 822.address consists of a 822.local-part and a sequence of 822.domains (e.g., <@domain1,@domain2:user@domain3>). All except the 822.domain associated with the 822.local-part (domain3 in this case) are considered to specify routing within theRFC 822 world, and will not be interpreted by the gateway (although they may have identified the gateway from within theRFC 822 world). The 822.domain associated with the 822.local-part identifies the gateway from within theRFC 822 world. This final 822.domain may be used to determine some number of OR Address attributes, where this does not conflict with the first role.RFC 822 routing to gateways will usually be set up to facilitate the 822.domain being used for both purposes. In the case that there is no applicable equivalence mapping, all of the X.400 address is encoded in the 822.local-part and the 822.domain identifies the gateway to which the message is being sent. This technique may be used by theRFC 822 user for any X.400 address where the equivalence mapping is not known. In the case that there is an applicable MCGAM, the maximum number of attributes are encoded in the 822.domain. The remaining attributes are encoded on the LHS, using the EBNF.std-or-address syntax. For example: /I=J/S=Linnimouth/GQ=5/@Marketing.Widget.COM encodes the MTS.ORAddress consisting of: MTS.CountryName = "TC" MTS.AdministrationDomainName = "BTT" MTS.OrganizationName = "Widget" MTS.OrganizationalUnitNames.value = "Marketing" MTS.PersonalName.surname = "Linnimouth"Kille Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 MTS.PersonalName.initials = "J" MTS.PersonalName.generation-qualifier = "5" on the basis of an MCGAM pair between: Domain: Widget.COM OR Address: O="Widget", ADMD="BTT", C="TC" Given the OR address, the domain Widget.COM is determined from the equivalence mapping and the next component is determined algorithmically to give Marketing.Widget.COM. The remaining attributes are encoded on the LHS in 822.local-part. There is a further mechanism to simplify the encoding of common cases, where the only attributes to be encoded on the LHS are (non- Teletex) Personal Name attributes which comply with the restrictions of 4.1.2. To achieve this, the 822.local-part shall be encoded as EBNF.encoded-pn. In the previous example, if the GenerationQualifier was not present in the OR Address, it would map with theRFC 822 address: J.Linnimouth@Marketing.Widget.COM. From the standpoint of theRFC 822 Message Transfer System, the domain specification is used to route the message in the standard manner. The standard domain mechanisms are used to select appropriate gateways for the corresponding OR Address space. It is the responsibility of the management that defines the equivalence mapping to define routing in the manner which will enable the message to be delivered.4.3.2.RFC 822 encoded in X.400 The previous section showed a mapping from X.400 toRFC 822. In the case where the mapping was symmetrical and based on the equivalence mapping, this has also shown howRFC 822 is encoded in the X.400. This equivalence cannot be used for allRFC 822 addresses. The general case is mapped by use of domain defined attributes. A (Printable String) Domain defined type "RFC-822" is defined. The associated attribute value is an ASCII string encoded according toSection 3.3.3 of this specification. The interpretation of the ASCII string followsRFC 822, andRFC 1123 [10,16]. Domains shall always be fully qualified.Kille Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Other OR Address attributes will be used to identify a context in which the OR Address will be interpreted. This might be a Management Domain, or some part of a Management Domain which identifies a gateway MTA. For example: C = "GB" ADMD = "GOLD 400" PRMD = "UK.AC" O = "UCL" OU = "CS" "RFC-822" = "Jimmy(a)WIDGET-LABS.CO.UK" OR C = "TC" ADMD = "Wizz.mail" PRMD = "42" "rfc-822" = "postel(a)venera.isi.edu" Note in each case the PrintableString encoding of "@" as "(a)". In the second example, the "RFC-822" domain defined attribute is interpreted everywhere within the (Private) Management Domain. In the first example, further attributes are needed within the Management Domain to identify a gateway. Thus, this scheme can be used with varying levels of Management Domain co-operation. There is a limit of 128 characters in the length of value of a domain defined attribute, and an OR Address can have a maxmimum of four domain defined attributes. Where the printable string generated from theRFC 822 address exceeds 128 characters, additional domain defined attributes are used to enable up to 512 characters to be encoded. These attributes shall be filled completely before the next one is started. The (Printable String) DDA keywords are: RFC822C1; RFC822C2; RFC822C3. Longer addresses cannot be encoded. MIXER defines a representation ofRFC 822 addresses in printable string domain defined attributes. Teletex domain defined attributes with a key ofRFC-822, RFC822C1; RFC822C2; RFC822C3 shall not be generated. This is for backwards compatibility reasons.Kille Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Reception of these attributes in the manner defined below is mandatory. This is to allow the possibility for future versions of MIXER to allow generation of teletex domain defined attributes. Where the values of all of these teletex domain defined attributes are printable string characters, they shall be interpreted in the same way as the printable string domain defined attributes. If this is not the case, the printable string encoding translation shall be omitted. If both teletex and printable string attributes are present, this is valid if and only if they represent exactly the sameRFC 822 address.4.3.3. Component Ordering In most cases, ordering of OR Address components is not significant for the mappings specified. However, Organizational Units (printable string and teletex forms) and Domain Defined Attributes are specified as SEQUENCE in MTS.ORAddress, and so their order may be significant. This specification needs to take account of this: 1. To allow consistent mapping into the domain hierarchy 2. To ensure preservation of order over multiple mappings. There are three places where an order is specified: 1. The text encoding (std-or-address) of MTS.ORAddress as used in the local-part of anRFC 822 address. An order is needed for those components which may have multiple values (Organizational Unit, and Domain Defined Attributes). When generating an 822.std-or-address, components of a given type shall be in hierarchical order with the most significant component on the RHS (right hand side or domain part). If there is an Organization Attribute, it shall be to the right of any Organizational Unit attributes. These requirements are for the following reasons: - Alignment to the hierarchy of other components inRFC822 addresses (thus, Organizational Units will appear in the same order, whether encoded on the RHS or LHS). - Backwards compatibility withRFC 987/1026. - To ensure that gateways generate consistent addresses. This is both to help end users, and to generate identical message ids.Kille Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Further, it is recommended that all other attributes are generated according to this ordering, so that all attributes so encoded follow a consistent hierarchy. When generating 822.msg-id, this order shall be followed. 2. For the Organizational Units (OU) in MTS.ORAddress, the first OU in the SEQUENCE is the most significant, as specified in X.400. 3. For the Domain Defined Attributes in MTS.ORAddress, the First Domain Defined Attribute in the SEQUENCE is the most significant. Note that although this ordering is mandatory for this mapping, MIXER does not give additional implications on the ordering significance within X.400.4.3.4.RFC 822 -> X.400 Basic Address Mapping There are two basic cases: 1. X.400 addresses encoded inRFC 822. This will also includeRFC 822 addresses which are given reversible encodings. 2. "Genuine"RFC 822 addresses. The mapping shall proceed as follows, by first assuming case 1). STAGE I. 1. If the 822-address is not of the form: local-part "@" domain take the domain which will be routed on and apply step 2 of stage 1 to derive (a possibly null) set of attributes. Then go to stage II. The gateway may reduce a source route address to this form by removal of all but the last domain. In terms of the design intentions ofRFC 822, this would be an incorrect action. (Note that an address of the form local%part@domain is not a source route). However, in most cases, it will provide a better serviceKille Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 to the end user, and is in line with the Internet Host Requirements. This is a reflection on the common inappropriate use of source routing inRFC 822 based systems, despite the discussion in the Host Requirements [10]. Either approach, or the intermediate approach of stripping only domain references which reference the local gateway are conformant to this specification. 2. If the 822.local-part uses the 822.quoted-string encoding, remove this quoting. If the resulting unquoted 822.local-part has leading space, trailing space, or two adjacent spaces go to stage II. 3. If the unquoted 822.local-part contains any characters not in PrintableString, "{", "}", "*", and "$", go to stage II. 4. Parse the (unquoted) 822.local-part according to the EBNF EBNF.std-or-address-input. Checking of upper bounds shall not be done at this point. If this parse fails, parse the local-part according to the EBNF EBNF.encoded-pn. If this parse fails, go to stage II. The result is a set of type/value pairs. 5. Associate the EBNF.attribute-value syntax (determined from the identified type) with each value, and check that it conforms. If not, go to stage II. 6. If the set of attributes forms a valid X.400 address, according to X.402, then go to step 9. All forms of X.400 address are allowed at this stage. Steps 7-8 default attributes for certain types of OR Address. 7. If the set of attributes cannot form a mnemonic form of X.400 address after addition of attributes which may be derived from the EBNF.domain (C, ADMD, PRMD, O, OU), go to stage II. 8. Attempt to parse EBNF.domain as: *( domain-syntax "." ) known-domain Where EBNF.known-domain is the longest possible match in the set of MCGAMs being used by the gateway (described inSection 4.2). EBNF.domain-syntax is the restricted domain syntax defined inSection 4.2, to which all of the domain components shall conform for the parse to be successful. If this fails, go to stage II.Kille Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 For each component, systematically allocate the attribute implied by each EBNF.domain-syntax component in the order: C, ADMD, PRMD, O, OU. Note that if the MCGAM used identifies an "omitted attribute", then this attribute shall be omitted in the systematic allocation. If this new component exceed an upper bound (ADMD: 16; PRMD: 16; O: 64; OU: 32) or it would lead to more than four OUs, then go to stage II with the attributes derived. The attributes derived in this step (referred to as RHS attributes) are merged with the ones derived from the LHS (step 6). In some cases, not all of the RHF attributes are used. LHS attributes are all used. C will not be in the LHS attributes. If ADMD is in the LHS attributes, only C is taken from the RHS attributes. If PRMD is in the LHS attributes, C and ADMD are taken from the RHS attributes. If O is on the LHS, C, ADMD and PRMD (if present) are taken from the RHS attributes. In other cases all RHS attributes are taken. 9. Ensure that the set of attributes conforms both to the MTS.ORAddress specification and to the restrictions on this set given in X.400, and that no upper bounds are exceeded for any attribute. If not go to stage II. 10. Build the OR Address from this information. STAGE II. This will only be reached if theRFC 822 EBNF.822-address is not a valid X.400 encoding. This implies that the address refers to a recipient on anRFC 822 system or that the encoding of the address is invalid. Such addresses shall be encoded in an X.400 OR Address using a domain defined attribute. 1. Convert the EBNF.822-address to PrintableString, as specified in Chapter 3. 2. Generate the "RFC-822" domain defined attribute from this string. 3. Build the rest of the OR Address in the manner described below.Kille Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 It is not always possible to encode the domain defined attribute due to length restrictions. If the limit is exceeded by a mapping at the MTS level, then the gateway shall reject the message in question. If this occurs at the IPMS level, then the action will depend on the policy being taken for IPMS encoding, which is discussed inSection 5.1.3. Use Stage I, step 8, to generate a set of attributes to build the remainder of the address. The administrative equivalence of the mappings will ensure correct routing through X.400 to a gateway back toRFC 822. If Stage I, step 8 does not generate a set of attributes or the address generated is unroutable, the remained of the OR address is generated as follows. The remainder of the OR address effectively identifies a source route to a gateway from the X.400 side. There are three cases, which are handled differently: SMTP Return Address This shall be set up so that errors are returned through the same gateway. Therefore, the OR Address of the local gateway shall be used. IPMS Addresses These are optimised for replying. In general, the message may end up anywhere within the X.400 world, and so this optimisation identifies a gateway appropriate for theRFC822 address being converted. The 822.domain to which the address would be routed is used to select an appropriate gateway. In this case, it may be useful to use a non-local gateway, which will optimise the reply address. This information may be looked up in gateway tables in a manner equivalent to the MCGAM lookup. Because of the similarity of lookup, the three MCGAM lookup mechanisms (table, X.500, DNS) are also available to look up this information. This information is local, and a gateway may insert any appropriate (gateway) OR Address. The longest possible match on the 822.domain defines which gateway to use. This mechanism is used for any part of the X.400 namespace for which it is desirable to identify a preferred X.400 gateway in order to optimise routing. If no mapping is found for the 822.domain, a default value (typically that of the local gateway) is used. It is never appropriate to ignore the locally used MCGAMs.Kille Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 SMTP Recipient As theRFC 822 and X.400 worlds are in principle fully connected, there is no technical reason for this situation to occur. In practice, this is not the case. In some cases, routing may be configured to use X.400 to connect anRFC 822 island to the Internet. The information that this part of the domain space is to be routed by X.400 rather than remaining within theRFC 822 world shall be configured privately into the gateway in question. X.400 routing shall not make use of the presence of theRFC-822 DDA to perform X.400 routing. The OR address shall then be generated in the same manner as for an IPMS address, using the locally available MCGAMs. It is to support this case that the definition of the global domain to gateway mapping is important, as the use of this mapping will lead to a remote X.400 address, which can be routed by X.400 routing procedures. The information in this mapping shall not be used as a basis for deciding to convert a message fromRFC822 to X.400. Three examples are given, neither of which has applicable MCGAMs. Example 1: (Address not in "localpart" "@" "domainpart") @relay.co.uk:userb@host2 maps to c=gb; a= ; p=uk.ac; o=mr; dd.rfc-822=(a)relay.co.uk:userb(a)host2; Example 2: (Address with non printablestring characters) Tom_Harris@cs.widget.com maps to c=us; a=MCI; P=relay; dd.rfc-822=Tom(u)Harris(a)cs.widget.com; Example 3: (Address with an entry for alter.net into the OR Address of Preferred Gateway table, pointing to c=gb; A=BTglobal; P=relay) postmaster@UK.alter.net maps to c=gb; a=BTglobal; P=relay; dd.rfc-822=postmaster(a)UK.alter.net;Kille Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19984.3.4.1. Heuristic for mappingRFC 822 to X.400 The following heuristic, which relates to ordering of address components, may be used when mapping fromRFC 822 to X.400. The ordering of attributes may be inverted or mixed, and so the following heuristics may be applied: If there is an Organization attribute to the left of any Org Unit attribute, assume that the hierarchy is inverted. This is to facilitate the situation where a user has input the attributes in reverse hierarchical order. To do this the gateway shall first map according to the order defined in 4.3.3. If this mapping generates an address which X.400 address verification shows to be invalid, this heuristic may be applied as an alternative to immediate rejection of the address.4.3.5. X.400 ->RFC 822 Basic Address Mapping There are two basic cases: 1.RFC 822 addresses encoded in X.400. 2. "Genuine" X.400 addresses. This may include symmetrically encodedRFC 822 addresses. When an MTS Recipient OR Address is interpreted, gatewaying will be selected if there is a single "RFC-822" domain defined attribute present. In this case, use mapping A and in other cases, use mapping B.RFC 1327 specified that this shall only be done when the gateway identfied is local or otherwise known, and identified the approach specified here as a pragmatic option. Experience has shown that this is effective in practice, despite theoretical problems. If a gateway wishes to make a mapping in a manner similar toRFC1327, but does not wish for this global interpretation (e.g., to support anRFC 822 local system, which does not use global addressing), then it may choose a private domain defined attribute, different to "RFC-822". AnRFC 1327 gateway might be configurable to operate in this manner. Mapping A 1. Map the domain defined attribute value to ASCII, as defined in Chapter 3, and drop all other attributes.Kille Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Mapping B This is used for X.400 addresses which do not use the explicitRFC822 encoding. 1. For all string encoded attributes, remove any leading or trailing spaces, and replace adjacent spaces with a single space. The only attribute which is permitted to have zero length is the ADMD. This shall be mapped onto a single space. These transformations are for lookup only. If an EBNF.std-or-address mapping is used as in 4), then the original values shall be used. 2. The numeric country codes may be mapped to the two letter values (as defined in ISO 3166). Global mappings are usually only defined in terms of the ISO 3166 codes. 3. Noting the hierarchy specified in 4.3.1 and including omitted attributes, determine the maximum set of attributes which have an associated domain specification in the local set of MCGAMs. If no match is found, allocate the domain as described below, and go to step 5. The default domain to be used is the specification of the local gateway. A gateway may use other domains according to private mapping tables or heuristics. For example, it may choose a domain which it knows to provide a free gateway service to the mapped address. In cases where the address refers to an X.400 UA, it is important that the generated domain will correctly route to a gateway. In general, this is achieved by carefully co- ordinatingRFC 822 routing with the definition of the MCGAMs, as there is no easy way for the gateway to make this check. One rule that shall be used is that domains with only one component will not route to a gateway. If the generated domain does not route correctly, the address is treated as if no match is found. The gateway may also make use of a mapping equivalent to the MCGAM mapping to determine the domain to use. This mapping is done from the OR Address hierarchy. This is not a global mapping, but is a routing style mapping from the OR Address space, to enable a best choice domain to be inserted. This mapping is supported by the three MCGAM lookup mechanisms.Kille Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 4. The mapping identified in 3) gives a domain, and an OR address prefix. Follow the hierarchy: C, ADMD, PRMD, O, OU. For each successive component below the OR address prefix, which conforms to the syntax EBNF.domain-syntax (as defined in 4.3.1), allocate the next subdomain. At least one attribute of the X.400 address shall not be mapped onto subdomain, as 822.local- part cannot be null. If there are omitted attributes in the OR address prefix, these will have correctly and uniquely mapped to a domain component. Where there is an attribute omitted below the prefix, all attributes remaining in the OR address shall be encoded on the LHS. This is to ensure a reversible mapping. For example, if there is an address /S=XX/O=YY/ADMD=A/C=NN/ and a mapping for /ADMD=A/C=NN/ is used, then /S=XX/O=YY/ is encoded on the LHS. 5. If the address contains any attribute not used in mnemonic form, then all of the attributes in the address shall be encoded on the LHS in EBNF.std-or-address syntax, as described below. For addresses of mnemonic form, if the remaining components are personal-name components, conforming to the restrictions of 4.2.1, then EBNF.encoded-pn is derived to form 822.local-part. In other cases the remaining components are simply encoded as 822.local-part using the EBNF.std-or-address syntax. If necessary, the 822.quoted-string encoding is used. The following are examples of legal quoting: "a b".c@x; "a b.c"@x. Either form may be generated. Generation of the latter style is strongly recommended. Four examples are given. Example 1: (Address with missing X.400 elements and no specific mapping rule for "o=sales; a=Master400; C=it", where a mapping exists for a=master400; C=it;) S=Support; O=sales; A=Master400; C=it; maps to /S=Support/o=sales/@Master400.itKille Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Example 2: (Address with illegal characters inRFC822 generated domain if default hierarchical translation (specific mapping rule is existing for c=fr; a=atlas; p=autoroutes) is used) S=renseignements; O=Region Parisienne; P=autoroutes; A=atlas; C=fr; maps to "/S=renseignements/o=Region Parisienne/"@autoroutes.fr Example 3: (Address containing elements not mappable intoRFC822 local part) S=Rossi; DD.cap=20100; DD.ph1=Via Larga 11; DDA.city=Milano; A=PtPostel; C=it; maps to "/DD.cap=20100/DD.ph1=Via Larga 11/DD.city=Milano/S=Rossi/"@ptpostel.it Example 4: (Address with an entry for A=ATT; C=us; into the domain of Preferred Gateway table, pointing to attmail.com) G=Andy; S=Wharol; O=MMNY; A=ATT; C=us; maps to /G=Andy/S=Wharol/O=MMNY@attmail.com4.4. Repeated Mappings There are two types of repeated mapping: 1. A recursive mapping, where the repeat is within one gateway 2 A source route, where the repetition occurs across multiple gatewaysKille Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19984.4.1. Recursive Mappings It is possible to supply an address which is recursive at a single gateway. For example: C = "XX" ADMD = "YY" O = "ZZ" "RFC-822" = "Smith(a)ZZ.YY.XX" This is mapped first to anRFC 822 address, and then back to the X.400 address: C = "XX" ADMD = "YY" O = "ZZ" Surname = "Smith" In some situations this type of recursion may be frequent. It is important where this occurs, that no unnecessary protocol conversion occurs. This will minimise loss of service.4.4.2. Source Routes The mappings defined are symmetrical and reversible across a single gateway. The symmetry is particularly useful in cases of (mail exploder type) distribution list expansion. For example, an X.400 user sends to a list on anRFC 822 system which he belongs to. The received message will have the originator and any 3rd party X.400 OR Addresses in correct format (rather than doubly encoded). In cases (X.400 orRFC 822) where there is common agreement on gateway identification, then this will apply to multiple gateways. When a message traverses multiple gateways, the mapping will always be reversible, in that a reply can be generated which will correctly reverse the path. In many cases, the mapping will also be symmetrical, which will appear clean to the end user. For example, if countries "AB" and "XY" haveRFC 822 networks, but are interconnected by X.400, the following may happen: The originator specifies: Joe.Soap@Widget.PTT.XYKille Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 This is routed to a gateway, which generates: C = "XY" ADMD = "PTT" PRMD = "Griddle MHS Providers" Organization = "Widget Corporation" Surname = "Soap" Given Name = "Joe" This is then routed to another gateway where the mapping is reversed to give: Joe.Soap@Widget.PTT.XY Here, use of the gateway is transparent. Mappings will only be symmetrical where mapping equivalences are defined. In other cases, the reversibility is more important, due to the (far too frequent) cases whereRFC 822 and X.400 services are partitioned. The syntax may be used to source route. THIS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. For example: X.400 ->RFC 822 -> X.400 C = "UK" ADMD = "Gold 400" PRMD = "UK.AC" "RFC-822" = "/PN=Duval/DD.Title=Manager/(a)Inria.ATLAS.FR" This will be sent to an arbitrary UK Academic Community gateway by X.400. Then it will be sent by JNT Mail to another gateway determined by the domain Inria.ATLAS.FR (FR.ATLAS.Inria). This will then derive the X.400 OR Address: C = "FR" ADMD = "ATLAS" PRMD = "Inria" PN.S = "Duval" "Title" = "Manager"Kille Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Similarly:RFC 822 -> X.400 ->RFC 822 "/RFC-822=jj(a)seismo.css.gov/PRMD=AC/ADMD=BT/C=GB/"@monet.berkeley.edu This will be sent to monet.berkeley.edu byRFC 822, then to the AC PRMD by X.400, and then to jj@seismo.css.gov byRFC 822.4.5. Directory Names Directory Names are an optional part of OR Name, along with OR Address. TheRFC 822 addresses are mapped onto the OR Address component. As there is no functional mapping for the Directory Name on theRFC 822 side, a textual mapping is used. There is no requirement for reversibility in terms of the goals of this specification. There may be some loss of functionality in terms of third party recipients where only a directory name is given, but this seems preferable to the significant extra complexity of adding a full mapping for Directory Names. The Directory Name shall be represented within anRFC 822 comment using the comaptible formats ofRFC 1484 orRFC 1485. It is recommended that the directory string format ofRFC 1485 is used [24]. The User Friendly Name form ofRFC 1484 may be used [25].4.6. MTS Mappings The basic mappings at the MTS level are: 1) SMTP originator -> MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.originator-name MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name -> SMTP originator 2) SMTP recipient -> MTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name -> SMTP recipient SMTP recipients and return addresses are encoded as EBNF.822-address. The MTS Originator is always encoded as MTS.OriginatorName, which maps onto MTS.ORAddressAndOptionalDirectoryName, which in turn maps onto MTS.ORName.Kille Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19984.6.1.RFC 822 -> X.400 MTS Mappings From the SMTP Originator, use the basic ORAddress mapping, to generate MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.originator-name (MTS.ORName), without a DirectoryName. For recipients, the following settings are made for each component of MTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields. recipient-name This is derived from the SMTP recipient by the basic ORAddress mapping. originator-report-request This may either be set to "delivery-report", or set according to SMTP extensions as set out inAppendix A. explicit-conversion This optional component is omitted, as this service is not needed extensions The default value (no extensions) is used4.6.2. X.400 ->RFC 822 MTS Mappings The basic functionality is to generate the SMTP originator and recipients. There is information present on the X.400 side, which cannot be mapped into analogous SMTP services. For this reason, newRFC 822 fields are added for the MTS Originator and Recipients. The information discarded at the SMTP level will be present in these fields. In some cases a (positive) delivery report will be generated.4.6.2.1. SMTP Mappings Use the basic ORAddress mapping, to generate the SMTP originator (return address) from MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name (MTS.ORName). If MTS.ORName.directory-name is present, it is discarded. (Note that it will be presented to the user, as described in 4.6.2.2). The mapping uses the MTA level information, and maps each value of MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.recipient-name, where the responsibility bit is set, onto an SMTP recipient. Note:The SMTP recipient is conceptually generated from MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name. This is done by taking MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name, and generating an SMTP recipient according to the basic ORAddressKille Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 mapping, discarding MTS.ORName.directory-name if present. However, if this model was followed exactly, there would be no possibility to have multiple SMTP recipients on a single message. This is unacceptable, and so layering is violated.4.6.2.2. Generation ofRFC 822 Headers Not all per-recipient information can be passed at the SMTP level. For this reason, two newRFC 822 headers are created, in order to carry this information to theRFC 822 recipient. These fields are "X400-Originator:" and "X400-Recipients:". The "X400-Originator:" field is set to the same value as the SMTP originator. In addition, if MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.originator-name (MTS.ORName) contains MTS.ORName.directory-name then this Directory Name shall be represented in an 822.comment. Recipient names, taken from each value of MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name and MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.other-recipient-names are made available to theRFC 822 user by use of the "X400-Recipients:" field. By taking the recipients at the MTS level, disclosure of recipients will be dealt with correctly. However, this conflicts with a desire to optimise mail transfer. There is no problem when disclosure of recipients is allowed. Similarly, there is no problem if there is only oneRFC 822 recipient, as the "X400-Recipients" field is only given one address. There is a problem if there are multipleRFC 822 recipients, and disclosure of recipients is prohibited. In this case, discard the per-recipient information. If any MTS.ORName.directory-name is present, it shall be represented in an 822.comment. If MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.orignally-intended-recipient-name is present, then there has been redirection, or there has been distribution list expansion. Distribution list expansion is a per- message option, and the information associated with this is represented by the "DL-Expansion-History:" field described inSection5.3.6. Other information is represented in an 822.comment associated with MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.this-recipient-name, The message may be delivered to differentRFC 822 recipients, and so several addresses in the "X400-Recipients:" field may have such comments. The non-commented recipient is theRFC 822 recipient. The EBNF of the comment is defined by redirect-comment.Kille Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 redirect-comment = redirect-first *( redirect-subsequent ) redirect-first = "Originally To:" mailbox "Redirected on" date-time "To:" redirection-reason redirect-subsequent = mailbox "Redirected Again on" date-time "To:" redirection-reason redirection-history-item = "intended recipient" mailbox "redirected to" redirection-reason "on" date-time redirection-reason = "Recipient Assigned Alternate Recipient" / "Originator Requested Alternate Recipient" / "Recipient MD Assigned Alternate Recipient" / "Directory Look Up" / "Alias" It is derived from MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.extension.redirection-history. The values are taken from the X.400(92) Implementor's guide (Version 13, July 1995). The first three values are in X.400(88). The fourth value is in X.400(92), but has the name "recipient-directory- substitution-alternate-recipient". An example of this with two redirects is: X400-Recipients: postmaster@widget.com (Originally To: sales-manager@sales.widget.com Redirected on Thu, 30 May 91 14:39:40 +0100 To: Originator Requested Alternate Recipient postmaster@sales.widget.com Redirected Again on Thu, 30 May 91 14:41:20 +0100 To: Recipient MD Assigned Alternate Recipient) In addition the following per-recipient services from MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields.extensions are represented in comments if they are used. None of these services can be provided onRFC 822 networks, and so in general these will be informative strings associated with other MTS recipients. In some cases, string values are defined. For the remainder, the string value shall be chosen by the implementor. If the parameter has a default value, then no comment shall be inserted when the parameter has that default value. requested-delivery-method physical-forwarding-prohibited "(Physical Forwarding Prohibited)".Kille Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 physical-forwarding-address-request "(Physical Forwarding Address Requested)". physical-delivery-modes registered-mail-type recipient-number-for-advice physical-rendition-attributes physical-delivery-report-request "(Physical Delivery Report Requested)". proof-of-delivery-request "(Proof of Delivery Requested)".4.6.2.3. Delivery Report Generation If SMTP is used, the behaviour is specified inAppendix A. In other cases, if MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.per-recipient- indicators requires a positive delivery notification, this shall be generated by the gateway. Supplementary Information shall be set to indicate that the report is gateway generated. This information shall include the name of the gateway generating the report.4.6.3. Message IDs (MTS) A mapping from 822.msg-id to MTS.MTSIdentifier is defined. The reverse mapping is not needed, as MTS.MTSIdentifier is always mapped onto newRFC 822 fields. The value of MTS.MTSIdentifier.local-part will facilitate correlation of gateway errors. To map from 822.msg-id, apply the standard mapping to 822.msg-id, in order to generate an MTS.ORAddress. The Country, ADMD, and PRMD components of this are used to generate MTS.MTSIdentifier.global- domain-identifier. MTS.MTSIdentifier.local-identifier is set to the 822.msg-id, including the braces "<" and ">". If this string is longer than MTS.ub-local-id-length (32), then it is truncated to this length. The reverse mapping is not used in this specification. It would be applicable where MTS.MTSIdentifier.local-identifier is of syntax 822.msg-id, and it algorithmically identifies MTS.MTSIdentifier.Kille Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19984.7. IPMS Mappings AllRFC 822 addresses are assumed to use the 822.mailbox syntax. This includes all 822.comments associated with the lexical tokens of the 822.mailbox. In the IPMS OR Names are encoded as MTS.ORName. This is used within the IPMS.ORDescriptor, IPMS.RecipientSpecifier, and IPMS.IPMIdentifier. An asymmetrical mapping is defined between these components.4.7.1.RFC 822 -> X.400 To derive IPMS.ORDescriptor from anRFC 822 address. 1. Take the address, and extract an EBNF.822-address. Any source routing shall be removed. This can be derived trivially from either the 822.addr-spec or 822.route-addr syntax. This is mapped to MTS.ORName as described above, and used as IMPS.ORDescriptor.formal-name. 2. A string shall be built consisting of (if present): - The 822.phrase component if the 822.address is an 822.phrase 822.route-addr construct. - Any 822.comments, in order, retaining the parentheses. This string is then encoded into T.61 using a human oriented mapping (as described inSection 3.5). If the string is not null, it is assigned to IPMS.ORDescriptor.free-form-name.3. IPMS.ORDescriptor.telephone-number is omitted. If IPMS.ORDescriptor is being used in IPMS.RecipientSpecifier, IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.reply-request and IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.notification-requests are set to default values (false and none). If the 822.group construct is present, any included 822.mailbox is encoded as above to generate a separate IPMS.ORDescriptor. The 822.group is mapped to T.61 (as described inSection 3.5), and a IPMS.ORDescriptor with only an free-form-name component built from it.4.7.2. X.400 ->RFC 822 Mapping from IPMS.ORDescriptor toRFC 822 address. In the basic case, where IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name is present, proceed as follows.Kille Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 1. Encode IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name (MTS.ORName) as EBNF.822-address. 2a. If IPMS.ORDescriptor.free-form-name is present, convert it to ASCII or T.61 (Section 3.5), and use this as the 822.phrase component of 822.mailbox using the 822.phrase 822.route-addr construct. 2b. If IPMS.ORDescriptor.free-form-name is absent. If EBNF.822-address is parsed as 822.addr-spec use this as the encoding of 822.mailbox. If EBNF.822-address is parsed as 822.route 822.addr-spec, then an 822.phrase taken from 822.local-part is added. 3 If IPMS.ORDescriptor.telephone-number is present, this is placed in an 822.comment, with the string "Tel ". The normal international form of number is used. For example: (Tel +44-181-333-7777) 4. If IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name.directory-name is present, then a text representation is placed in a trailing 822.comment. 5. If IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.report-request has any non- default values, then an 822.comment "(Receipt Notification Requested)", and/or "(Non Receipt Notification Requested)", and/or "(IPM Return Requested)" may be appended to the address. "(Receipt Notification Requested)" may be used to infer "(Non Receipt Notification Requested)". The effort of correlating P1 and P2 information is too great to justify the gateway sending Receipt Notifications. InRFC 1327, inclusion of these comments was mandatory. Experience has shown that the clutter and confusion caused toRFC 822 users does not justify the information conveyed. Implementors are recommended to not include these comments. Unless an application is found where retention of these comments is desirable, they will be dropped from the next version. 6. If IPMS.RecipientSpecifier.reply-request is True, an 822.comment "(Reply requested)" is appended to the address. If IPMS.ORDescriptor.formal-name is absent, IPMS.ORDescriptor.free- form-name is converted to ASCII (seesection 3.5), and used as 822.phrase within theRFC 822 822.group syntax. For example: Free Form Name ":" ";"Kille Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Steps 3-6 are then followed.4.7.3. IP Message IDs There is a need to map both ways between 822.msg-id and IPMS.IPMIdentifier. This allows for X.400 Receipt Notifications, Replies, and Cross References to reference anRFC 822 Message ID, which is preferable to a gateway generated ID. A reversible and symmetrical mapping is defined. This provides fully reversible mappings when messages pass multiple times across the X.400/RFC 822 boundary. An important issue with messages identifiers is mapping to the exact form, as many systems use these ids as uninterpreted keys. The use of table driven mappings is not always symmetrical, particularly in the light of alternative domain names, and alternative management domains. For this reason, a purely algorithmic mapping is used. A mapping which is simpler than that for addresses can be used for two reasons: - There is no major requirement to make message IDs "natural" - There is no issue about being able to reply to message IDs. (For addresses, creating a return path which works is more important than being symmetrical). The mapping works by defining a way in which message IDs generated on one side of the gateway can be represented on the other side in a systematic manner. The mapping is defined so that the possibility of clashes is low enough to be treated as impossible.4.7.3.1. 822.msg-id represented in X.400 IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user is omitted. The IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user- relative-identifier is set to a printable string encoding of the 822.msg-id with the angle braces ("<" and ">") removed. The upper bound on this component is 64. The options for handling this are discussed inSection 5.1.3.4.7.3.2. IPMS.IPMIdentifier represented inRFC 822 The 822.domain of 822.msg-id is set to the value "MHS". The 822.local-part of 822.msg-id is constructed by building a string of syntax EBNF.id-loc from IPMS.IPMIdentifier. id-loc ::= [ printablestring ] "*" [ std-or-address ]Kille Standards Track [Page 69]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 EBNF.printablestring is the IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative- identifier, and EBNF.std-or-address being an encoding of the IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user derived according to this specification. 822.local-part is derived from EBNF.id-loc, if necessary using the 822.quoted-string encoding. For example: <"147*/S=Dietrich/O=Siemens/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/"@MHS>4.7.3.3. 822.msg-id -> IPMS.IPMIdentifier If the 822.local-part can be parsed as: [ printablestring ] "*" [ std-or-address ] and the 822.domain is "MHS", then this ID was X.400 generated. If EBNF.printablestring is present, the value is assigned to IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-identifier. If EBNF.std-or-address is present, the OR Address components derived from it are used to set IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user. Otherwise, this is anRFC 822 generated ID. In this case, set IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-identifier to a printable string encoding of the 822.msg-id without the angle braces and omit IPMS.IPMID.user.4.7.3.4. IPMS.IPMIdentifier -> 822.msg-id If IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user is absent, and IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user- relative-identifier mapped to ASCII and angle braces added parses as 822.msg-id, then this is anRFC 822 generated ID. Otherwise, the ID is X.400 generated. Use the IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user to generate an EBNF.std-or-address form string. Build the 822.local-part of the 822.msg-id with the syntax: [ printablestring ] "*" [ std-or-address ] The printablestring is taken from IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative- identifier. Use 822.quoted-string if necessary. The 822.msg-id is generated with this 822.local-part, and "MHS" as the 822.domain.4.7.3.5. Phrase form In "In-Reply-To:" and "References:", the encoding 822.phrase may be used as an alternative to 822.msg-id. To map from 822.phrase to IPMS.IPMIdentifier, assign IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative- identifier to the phrase. When mapping from IPMS.IPMIdentifier for "In-Reply-To:" and "References:", if IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user isKille Standards Track [Page 70]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 absent and IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user-relative-identifier does not parse as 822.msg-id, generate an 822.phrase rather than adding the domain MHS.4.7.3.6.RFC 987 backwards compatibility The mapping defined here is different to that used inRFC 987, as theRFC 987 mapping lead to changed message IDs in many cases. Fixing the problems is preferable to retaining backwards compatibility. An implementation of this standard may recognise message IDs generated byRFC 987. This is not recommended.RFC 987 generated encodings may be recognised as follows. When mapping from X.400 toRFC 822, if the IPMS.IPMIdentifier.user- relative-identifier is "RFC-822" the id isRFC 987 generated. When mapping fromRFC 822 to X.400, if the 822.domain is not "MHS", and the 822.local-part can be parsed as [ printablestring ] "*" [ std-or-address ] then it isRFC 987 generated. In each of these cases, it is recommended to follow theRFC 987 rules.Chapter 5 - Detailed Mappings This chapter specifies detailed mappings for the functions outlined in Chapters 1 and 2. It makes extensive use of the notations and mappings defined in Chapters 3 and 4.5.1.RFC 822 -> X.400: Detailed Mappings The mapping ofRFC 822/MIME messages to X.400 InterPersonal Messages is described in Sections5.1.1 to5.1.7. Mapping of NOTARY format delivery status notifications, which are all messages of type multipart/report and subtype delivery-status-notifications to X.400 delivery reports is covered inSection 5.1.8.5.1.1. Basic Approach A single IP Message is generated from anRFC 822 message. TheRFC822 headers are used to generate the IPMS.Heading. SomeRFC 822 fields cannot be mapped onto a standard IPM Heading field, and so an extended field is defined inSection 5.1.2. This is then used for fields which cannot be mapped onto existing services.Kille Standards Track [Page 71]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The message is submitted to the MTS, and the services required can be defined by specifying MTS.MessageSubmissionEnvelope. A few parameters of the MTA Abstract service are also specified, which are not in principle available to the MTS User. Use of these services allowsRFC 822 MTA level parameters to be carried in the analogous X.400 service elements. The advantages of this mapping far outweigh the layering violation.5.1.2. X.400 Extension Field An IPMS Extension is defined:rfc-822-field HEADING-EXTENSION VALUE RFC822FieldList ::= id-rfc-822-field-list RFC822FieldList ::= SEQUENCE OF RFC822Field RFC822Field ::= IA5String The Object Identifier id-rfc-822-field-list is defined inAppendix D. To encode anyRFC 822 Header using this extension, an RFC822Field element is built using the 822.field omitting the trailing CRLF (e.g., "Fruit-Of-The-Day: Kiwi Fruit"). All fields shall be unfolded. There shall be no space before the ":". The reverse mapping builds theRFC 822 field in a straightforward manner. This RFC822Field is appended to the RFC822FieldList, which is added to the IPM Heading as an extension field.5.1.3. Generating the IPM The IPM (IPMS Service Request) is generated according to the rules of this section. The IPMS.IPM.body is generated from theRFC 822 message body in the manner described inSection 5.1.5. If no specific 1988 features are used, the IPM generated is encoded as content type 2. Otherwise, it is encoded as content type 22. The latter will always be the case if extension heading fields are generated.Kille Standards Track [Page 72]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 When generating the IPM, the issue of upper bounds are handled as follows. Truncate fields to the upper bounds specified in X.400. This will prevent problems with UAs which enforce upper bounds, but will sometimes discard useful information. This approach will cause more problems for some fields than others (e.g., truncating an OR Address component that would be used to route a reply would be a more severe problem than truncating a Free Form Name). If the Free Form name is truncated, it shall be done so that it does not breakRFC 822 comments andRFC 1522 encoding. Note:This approach removes a choice of options given inRFC 1327, based on operational experience. The rest of this section concerns IPMS.IPM.heading (IPMS.Heading). The only mandatory component of IPMS.Heading is the IPMS.Heading.this-IPM (IPMS.IPMIdentifier). A default is generated by the gateway. With the exception of "Received:", the values of multiple fields are merged (e.g., If there are two "To:" fields, then the mailboxes of both are merged to generate a single list which is used in the IPMS.Heading.primary-recipients. Information shall be generated from the standardRFC 822 Headers as follows: Date: Ignore (Handled at MTS level) Received: Ignore (Handled at MTA level) Message-Id: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.this-IPM. For these, and all other fields containing 822.msg-id the mappings of Chapter 4 are used for each 822.msg-id. From: If Sender: is present, this is mapped to IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users. If not, it is mapped to IPMS.Heading.originator. For this, and other components containing addresses, the mappings of Chapter 4 are used for each address. Sender: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.originator. Because X.400 does not have the same From/Sender distinction asRFC 822, this mapping is not always natural and may lead to unexpected results in some cases. Reply-To: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.reply-recipients.Kille Standards Track [Page 73]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 To: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.primary-recipients Cc: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.copy-recipients. Bcc: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.blind-copy-recipients if there is at least one BCC: recipient. If there are no recipients in this field, it shall either be mapped to a zero length sequence or mapped to a single recipient that has a free from name "BCC" and no other addressing information. This alternate treatment is allowed because some X.400 systems cannot handle a zero lenght sequence of addresses. In-Reply-To: If there is one value, it is mapped to IPMS.Heading.replied-to- IPM, using the 822.phrase or 822.msg-id mapping as appropriate. If there are multiple values, this cannot be done as the X.400 heading is single valued. In this case no IPMS.Heading.replied- to-IPM is generated and the values are mapped to IPMS.Heading.related-IPMs, along with any values from a "References:" field. References: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.related-IPMs. Keywords: Mapped onto a heading extension. Subject: Mapped to IPMS.Heading.subject. The field-body uses the human oriented mapping referenced inSection 3.3.4. Comments: Mapped onto a heading extension. This is a change from 1327, which specified to generate an IPMS.BodyPart of type IPMS.IA5TextBodyPart with IPMS.IA5TextBodyPart.parameters.repertoire set to the default (ia5), containing the value of the fields, preceded by the string "Comments: " and that this body part shall precede the other one. Experience has shown that this complexity is not justified. This text is retained to facilitate backwards compatibility. Encrypted: Mapped onto a heading extension. Resent-* Mapped onto a heading extension.Kille Standards Track [Page 74]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Note that it would be possible to use a ForwardedIPMessage for these fields, but the semantics are (arguably) slightly different, and it is probably not worth the effort. Content-Language: This field is defined inRFC 1766 [7]. Map the first two characters of each value given onto the IPM Languages extension. If any comments or values longer than two characters occur, a header extension shall also be generated. Other Fields In particular X-* fields, and "illegal" fields in common usage (e.g., "Fruit-of-the-day:") are mapped onto a heading extension, unless covered by another section or appendix of this specification. The same treatment is applied toRFC 822 fields where the content of the field does not conform toRFC 822 (e.g., a Date: field with unparseable syntax). The mapping of the following headings is defined inRFC 2157. MIME-Version: 5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type Content-ID Content-Description5.1.4. Generating the IPM Body Generation of the IPM Body is defined inRFC 2157.5.1.5. Mappings to the MTS Abstract Service The MTS.MessageSubmissionEnvelope comprises MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields, and MTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields. The mandatory parameters are defaulted as follows. MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.originator-name This is always generated from SMTP, as defined in Chapter 4. MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.content-type Set to the value implied by the encoding of the IPM (2 or 22). MTS.PerRecipientMessageSubmissionFields.recipient-name These will always be supplied from SMTP, as defined in Chapter 4.Kille Standards Track [Page 75]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Optional components are omitted, and default components defaulted. This means that disclosure of recipients is prohibited and conversion is allowed. There are two exceptions to the defaulting. For MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.per-message-indicators, the following settings are made: - Alternate recipient is allowed, as it seems desirable to maximise the opportunity for (reliable) delivery. If SMTP is used,Appendix A shall be followed in setting these parameters. The trace is set to indicate conversion (described below) and the encoded information types in the trace is derived from the message generated by the gateway, and shall reflect all body parts (including those in enclosed messages). In addition it shall include the Encoded Information Type "eit-mixer", which is defined inAppendix D. The presence of the EIT will indicate to the X.400 recipient that a MIXER conversion has occurred. MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.original-encoded-information-types will include all of the values used in the trace, unless specified otherwise inRFC 2157. This type of conversion will prevent the normal loop detection from working in certain circumstances, and introduces the possiblity of gateway loops. MIXER gateways shall therefore count the number of MIXER conversions made. If this count exceeds five in one direction, the message shall be treated as if a loop has been detected. The MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.content-correlator is encoded as IA5String, and contains the Subject:, Message-ID:, Date:, and To: fields (if present) in this order. This includes the strings "Subject:", "Date:", "To:", "Message-ID:", and appropriate folding to make the field appear readable. This shall be truncated to MTS.ub- content-correlator-length (512) characters. In addition, if there is a "Subject:" field, the MTS.PerMessageSubmissionFields.content- identifier, is set to a printable string representation of the contents of it. If the length of this string is greater than MTS.ub-content-id-length (16), it shall be truncated to 13 characters and the string "..." appended. Both are used, due to the much larger upper bound of the content correlator, and that the content id is available in X.400(1984).Kille Standards Track [Page 76]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19985.1.6. Mappings to the MTA Abstract Service There is a need to map directly onto some aspects of the MTA Abstract service, for the following reasons: - So the MTS Message Identifier can be generated from theRFC822 Message-ID:. - So that the submission date can be generated from the 822.Date. - To prevent loss of trace information - To preventRFC 822/X.400 looping caused by distribution lists or redirects The following mappings are defined. Message-Id: If this is present and no Resent: fields are present, the MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.message-identifier may be generated from it, using the mappings described in Chapter 4. This mapping arguably generates messages which do not conform to US GOSIP (1984 version only), which states: 6.7.e MPDU Identifier Validation (1) Validation of the GlobalDomainIdentifier component of the MPDU Identifier is performed on reception of a message (i.e. the result of a TRANSFER.Indication). (2) The country name should be known to the validating domain, and depending on the country name, validation of the ADMD name may also be possible. (3) Additional validation of the GlobalDomainIdentifier is performed against the corresponding first entry in the TraceInformation. If inconsistencies are found during the comparison, a non-delivery notice with the above defined reason and diagnostic code is generated. (4) A request will be generated to the CCITT for a more meaningful diagnostic code (such as "InconsistentMPUTIdentifier").Kille Standards Track [Page 77]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 This applies to ADMDs only, and is specified in the 1984 version and not the 1988 version. Conformance depends on the interpretation of "inconsistency". The specification makes the most sensible choice, and so is not being changed in the update fromRFC 1327. Date: (and Resent-Date:) If one or more Resent-Date: fields is present, the most recent Resent-Date: field shall be used instead of the Date: field in the following description. The Date: field is used to set the first component of MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information (MTA.TraceInformationElement). The SMTP originator is mapped into an MTS.ORAddress, and used to derive MTA.TraceInformationElement.global-domain-identifier. The optional components of MTA.TraceInformationElement.domain- supplied-information are omitted, and the mandatory components are set as follows: MTA.DomainSuppliedInformation.arrival-time This is set to the date derived from Date: MTA.DomainSuppliedInformation.routing-action Set to relayed. The first element of MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace- information is generated in an analogous manner, although this can be dropped later in certain circumstances (see the procedures for "Received:"). The MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-name is derived from the 822.domain in the 822 MTS Originator address. Received: AllRFC 822 trace is used to derive MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information and MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information. Processing of Received: lines follows processing of Date:, and is done from the bottom to the top of theRFC 822 header (i.e., in chronological order). When other trace elements (in particular X400-Received:) are processed the relative ordering (top to bottom of the header) shall be retained correctly. The initial element of MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace- information shall be generated from Date: as described above, unless the message has previously been in X.400, when it will be derived from the X.400 trace information.Kille Standards Track [Page 78]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 For each Received: field, the following processing shall be done. If the "by" part of the received is present and there is an available MCGAM which can map this domain, use it to derive an MTS.GlobalDomainIdentifier. Otherwise MTS.GlobalDomainIdentifier is set from local information. If this is different from the one in the last element of MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace- information (MTA.TraceInformationElement.global-domain-identifier) create a new MTA.TraceInformationElement, and optionally remove MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information. Requirements on trace stripping are discussed below. Then add a new element (MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement) to MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information, creating this if needed. This shall be done, even if nter-MD trace is created. The MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.global-domain- identifier is set to the value derived. The MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-supplied-information (MTA.MTASuppliedInformation) is set as follows: MTA.MTASuppliedInformation.arrival-time Derived from the date of the Received: line MTA.MTASuppliedInformation.routing-action Set to relayed The MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-name is taken from the "by" component of the "Received:" field, truncated to MTS.ub-mta- name-length (32). For example: Received: from computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk by vs6.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP id aa03794; 28 Mar 89 16:38 GMT Generates the string vs6.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK The gateway shall add in a single element of trace information, reflecting the gateway's local information and the time of conversion. The MTA.InternalTraceInformationElement.mta-supplied- information (MTA.MTASuppliedInformation) is set as follows: MTA.DomainSuppliedInformation.arrival-time Set to the time of conversion MTA.DomainSuppliedInformation.routing-action Set to relayedKille Standards Track [Page 79]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 MTA.AdditionalAcctions.converted-encoded-information-types Set to correct set of EITs for the message that is generated by the gateway. This trace element will thus reflect gateway operation as a conversion. This trace generation will often lead to generation of substantial amounts of trace information, which does not reflect X.400 transfers. Stripping of some of this trace may be necessary in some operational environments. This stripping shall be considered a function of the associated X.400 MTA, and not of the MIXER gateway.5.1.7. Mapping New Fields This specification defines a number of new fields for Reports, Notifications and IP Messages. A gateway conforming to this specification shall map all of these fields to X.400, except as defined below. The mapping of two extended fields is particularly important, in order to prevent looping. "DL-Expansion-History:" is mapped to MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.extensions.dl-expansion-history X400- Received: shall be mapped to MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace- information and MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace- information. In cases where X400-Received: is present, the usual mapping of Date: to generate the first element of trace shall not be done. This is because the message has come from X.400, and so the first element of trace can be taken from the first X400-Received:. The following fields shall not be mapped, and shall be - Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions: - Message-Type: - Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions: - X400-Content-Type: - X400-Originator: - X400-Recipients: - X400-MTS-Identifier: Mapping this field would be useful in some circumstances, but very dangerous in others (e.g., following an internet list expansion). Therefore it is not mapped.Kille Standards Track [Page 80]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19985.1.8. Mapping Delivery Status Notifications to X.4005.1.8.1. Basic Model Internet Mail delivery status notifications (DSN) are mapped to X.400 delivery reports. With message mapping, information without a mapping is carried by an IPM Extension. This cannot be done for delivery reports. Two mechanisms are used for information where there is not a direct mapping. The first mechanism is to define extensions, which allow all of the DSN information to be carried in the delivery report. This is not completely satisfactory for two reasons: 1. User defined extensions are supported by the ISO version of the standard, but not the CCITT one. Therefore, implementation support for these extensions will not be universal. 2. X.400 User Agent implementations will not in general recognise these extensions. Therefore, although the information will be present, it will often not be available to the user. This may be very problematic, as this information may be critical to diagnosing the reason for a failure. Therefore a second mechanism is defined. This shall always be used when the DSN contains non-delivery information, and may be used in other cases. This mechanism is to map the whole DSN (as if it were an ordinary multipart) into the return of content. This will make the DSN information available as a text body part in the outer message, with the real returned content as an enclosed message. This mechanism will ensure that information is not lost at the gateway.5.1.8.2. DSN Extensions Two X.400 MTS extensions are defined as follows: dsn-header-list EXTENSION RFC822FieldList ::= id-dsn-header-list dsn-field-list EXTENSION RFC822FieldList ::= id-dsn-field-listKille Standards Track [Page 81]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The Object Identifiers id-dsn-header-list and id-dsn-field-list are defined inAppendix D. Theses extensions are used in the same way as the IPM extensionrfc-822-field, described inSection 5.1.2. These extensions may only be used with ISO-10021, and not X.400 (which does not allow user extensions at the MTS level).5.1.8.3. DSN to Delivery Report Mapping Some DSNs are mapped to Delivery Reports and some to IPMs, according to the value of the action field. The mapping to an IPM is exactly as for a normal IPM mapping. The choice of IPM and Delivery report is made for each reported recipient. If this choice is different for different reported recipients both a Delivery Report and an IPM shall be generated. Reports are not be submitted in the X.400 model, and so the report submission is considered in terms of the MTA Abstract Service. An MTA.Report is constructed. The MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report- identifier is generated from the Message-Id of the DSN (if present) and otherwise generated as the MTA would generate one for a submitted message. The DSN has anRFC 822 header. Trace is mapped in the same manner as for a message to MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.trace-information. All other headers are used to create a dsn-header-list extension, which is added to MTA.PerReportTransferFields.extensions. The DSN will have a single SMTP recipient. This is mapped to the MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report-destination-name. The DSN is then treated as a normal MIME message, and an X.400 IPM is generated. This IPM is used as MTA.PerReportTransferFields.returned-content, and its type is used to set MTA.PerReportTransferFields.content-type. The DSN body part is mapped as if it was IA5 text/plain. The mandatory MTA.PerReportTransferFields.subject-identifier shall be generated from the DSN.per-message-field original-envelope-id, if this starts with the string "X400-MTS-Identifier: ", and derived from the rest of the field, which is encoded as EBNF.mts-msg-id. In other cases, this field shall be generated by the MIXER Gateway. All other mappings are made from the DSN body part. A dsn-field-list extension is created and added to MTA.ReportTransferFields.extensions. This is referred to as the per report extension list. The DSN.per-message-fields are mapped as follows:Kille Standards Track [Page 82]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 original-envelope-id-field reporting-mta-field dsn-gateway-field received-from-mta-field arrival-date-field extension-field other All of these fields are added to the per report extension list. Currently there are no other mappings defined. Each reported recipient is considered in turn, and a MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields created for each. The parameters of this are defaulted as follows: originally-specified-recipient-number In general, these are not available, and so are assigned incrementally. last-trace-information The arrival-time is generated from DSN.arrival-date if present, and if not from the Date: of the DSN. This is a strucutred field, and the Report element contains the key information on the recipient. For a DeliveryReport, the type-ofMTS-user is defaulted to public and the message-deliery-time is set to the same as the arrival-time. For a NonDeliveryReport, the code mappings are define inSection 5.1.8.4. A dsn-field-list extension is created and added to MTA.PerRecipientTransferFields.extensions. This is referred to as the per recipient extension list. The DSN.per-recipient-fields are mapped as follows original-recipient-field Mapped to MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields.originally- intended-recipient-name. final-recipient-field Mapped to MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields.actual-recipient- name. action-field If this is set to "failed", a non-delivery report is generated. If this is set to "delivered" a delivery report is generated. Bit one or two of MTA.PerRecipientTransferFields.per-recipient- indicators is set accordingly. This also controls the encoding of MTA.PerRecipientTransferFields.last-trace-information, and the selection of the report type.Kille Standards Track [Page 83]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 For other values of the action-field ("delayed", "relayed", "expanded"), an IPM is generated. This enables the status information to be communicated to the X.400 user, without the confusion of multiple delivery reports. status-field This is added to the per report extension list. For non-delivery, it is also used to generate the reason and diagnostic codes contained within MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields.last-trace. The mappings are defined below. remote-mta-field diagnostic-code-field last-attempt-date-field will-retry-until-field extension-field other All of these fields are added to the per recipient extension list.5.1.8.4. Status Value Mappings Status values are mapped to X.400 reason and diagnostic codes as follows. If a status value is found that is not in this table, the gateway may use the same mapping as for "X.n.0" (1/None or 0/None), or it may map to another, configurable code. Implementors are requested to forward new codes to the mixer list for inclusion in future versions of this standard. So for instance. "5.2.37", currently undefined, would map onto the same as "5.2.0", namely 1/None.Kille Standards Track [Page 84]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998DSN code Meaning X400 code MeaningX.0.0 Other status 1/NoneX.1.0 Other Address Status 1/NoneX.1.1 Bad mailbox address 1/0 UnrecognizedX.1.2 Bad system address 1/0 UnrecognizedX.1.3 Bad mailbox address syntax 1/0 UnrecognizedX.1.4 Mailbox address ambiguous 1/1X.1.5 Only used for positive reports, not applicableX.1.6 Destination mailbox has moved 1/43 New addr unknownX.1.7 Bad sender's mailbox address syntax 1/11 Invalid argumentsX.1.8 Bad sender's system address 1/11 Invalid argumentsX.2.0 Other or undefined mailbox status 1/NoneX.2.1 Mailbox disabled, not accepting 1/4 Recipient unavailX.2.2 Mailbox full 1/4X.2.3 Message length exceeds admin limit. 1/7 Content too longX.2.4 Mailing list expansion problem 1/30 DL expansion failX.3.0 Other or undefined system status 0/NoneX.3.1 System full 1/2 MTS congestionX.3.2 System not accepting network messages 1/2 MTS congestionX.3.3 System not capable of selected feat 1/18 Unsupp crit funcX.3.4 Message too big for system 1/7X.3.5 System incorrectly configured 1/NoneX.4.0 Other or undefined network or routing 0/NoneX.4.1 No answer from host 0/NoneX.4.2 Bad connection 0/NoneX.4.3 Routing server failure 6/None Dir op unsucc.X.4.4. Unable to route 0/NoneX.4.5 Network congestion 1/2 MTS congest.X.4.6 Routing loop detected 1/3X.4.7 Delivery time expired 1/5X.5.0 Other or undefined protocol status 1/NoneX.5.1 Invalid command 1/14 Protocol viol.X.5.2 Syntax error 1/14X.5.3 Too many recipients 1/16X.5.4 Invalid command arguments 1/14X.5.5 Wrong protocol version 1/18 Unsupp.crit.funcKille Standards Track [Page 85]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998X.6.0 Other or undefined media error 2/None Conv. not perfX.6.1 Media not supported 1/6 EIT unsupp.X.6.2 Conversion required and prohibited 1/9X.6.3 Conversion required but not supported 2/8X.6.4 Conversion with loss performed POSITIVE onlyX.6.5 Conversion failed 2/47 Unable to downgradeX.7.0 Other or undefined security status 1/46X.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message ref 1/29 No DL submit permX.7.2 Mailing list expansion prohibited 1/28X.7.3 Security conversion req but not poss 1/46 Secure mess. errorX.7.4 Security features not supported 1/46X.7.5 Cryptographic failure 1/46X.7.6 Cryptographic algorithm not supported 1/46X.7.7 Message integrity failure 1/465.1.8.5. DSNs that originated in X.400 The mapping of X.400 delivery reports to DSNs will in general provide sufficient information to make a useful reverse mapping. Messages will often be mapped multiple times, commonly due to forwarding messages and to distribution lists. Multiple mappings for delivery reports will be a good deal less common. For this reason, the reverse mapping of the X.400 DSN extensions defined in MIXER is optional.5.2. Return of ContentsRFC 1327 offered two approaches for return of content, as this service is optional in X.400 and expected inRFC 822. MIXER simply requires that a gateway requests the return of content service from X.400.5.3. X.400 ->RFC 822: Detailed Mappings5.3.1. Basic Approach A singleRFC 822 message is generated from the incoming IP Message, Report, or IP Notification. All IPMS.BodyParts are mapped onto a singleRFC 822 body. Other services are mapped ontoRFC 822 header fields. Where there is no appropriate existing field, new fields are defined for IPMS, MTS and MTA services. The gateway mechanisms will correspond to MTS Delivery. As with submission, there are aspects where the MTA (transfer) services are also used. In particular, there is an optimisation to allow for multiple SMTP recipients.Kille Standards Track [Page 86]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19985.3.2.RFC 822 Settings AnRFC 822 Message has a number of mandatory fields in theRFC 822 Header. Some SMTP services mandate specification of an SMTP Originator. Even in cases where this is optional, it is usually desirable to specify a value. The following defaults are defined, which shall be used if the mappings specified do not derive a value: SMTP Originator If this is not generated by the mapping (e.g., for a Delivery Report), a value pointing at a gateway administrator shall be assigned. Date: A value will always be generated From: If this is not generated by the mapping, it is assigned equal to the SMTP Originator. If this is gateway generated, an appropriate 822.phrase shall be added. At least one recipient field If no recipient fields are generated, a field "To: list:;", shall be added. This will ensure minimalRFC 822 compliance. When generatingRFC 822 headers, folding may be used. It is recommended to do this, following the guidelines ofRFC 822.5.3.3. Basic Mappings5.3.3.1. Encoded Information Types This mapping from MTS.EncodedInformationTypes is needed in several disconnected places. EBNF is defined as follows: encoded-info = 1#encoded-type encoded-type = built-in-eit / object-identifierKille Standards Track [Page 87]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 built-in-eit = "Undefined" ; undefined (0) / "Telex" ; tLX (1) / "IA5-Text" ; iA5Text (2) / "G3-Fax" ; g3Fax (3) / "TIF0" ; tIF0 (4) / "Teletex" ; tTX (5) / "Videotex" ; videotex (6) / "Voice" ; voice (7) / "SFD" ; sFD (8) / "TIF1" ; tIF1 (9) MTS.EncodedInformationTypes is mapped onto EBNF.encoded-info. MTS.EncodedInformationTypes.non-basic-parameters is ignored. Built in types are mapped onto fixed strings (compatible with X.400(1984) andRFC 987), and other types are mapped onto EBNF.object-identifier.5.3.3.2. Global Domain Identifier The following simple EBNF is used to represent MTS.GlobalDomainIdentifier: global-id = std-or-address This is encoded using the std-or-address syntax, for the attributes within the Global Domain Identifier.5.3.4. Mappings from the IP Message Consider that an IPM has to be mapped toRFC 822. The IPMS.IPM comprises an IPMS.IPM.heading and IPMS.IPM.body. The heading is considered first. Some EBNF for new fields is defined:ipms-field = "Supersedes" ":" 1*msg-id / "Expires" ":" date-time / "Reply-By" ":" date-time / "Importance" ":" importance / "Sensitivity" ":" sensitivity / "Autoforwarded" ":" boolean / "Incomplete-Copy" ":" / "Content-Language" ":" 1#language / "Message-Type" ":" message-type / "Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions" ":" 1#object-identifier / "Autosubmitted" ":" autosubmittedimportance = "low" / "normal" / "high"Kille Standards Track [Page 88]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998sensitivity = "Personal" / "Private" / "Company-Confidential"language = 2*ALPHA [ "(" language-description ")" ] language-description = printable-stringmessage-type = "Delivery Report" / "InterPersonal Notification" / "Multiple Part"autosubmitted = "not-auto-submitted" / "auto-generated" / "auto-replied" / "auto-forwarded" The mappings and actions for the IPMS.Heading are now specified for each element. Addresses and Message Identifiers are mapped according to Chapter 4. Other mappings are explained, or are straightforward (algorithmic). If a field with addresses contains zero elements, it shall be discarded, except for IPMS.Heading.blind-copy-recipients, which can be mapped onto BCC: (the onlyRFC 822 field which allows zero recipients). IPMS.Heading.this-IPM Mapped to "Message-ID:". IPMS.Heading.originator If IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users is present this is mapped to Sender:, if not to "From:". IPMS.Heading.authorizing-users Mapped to "From:". IPMS.Heading.primary-recipients Mapped to "To:". IPMS.Heading.copy-recipients Mapped to "Cc:". IPMS.Heading.blind-copy-recipients Mapped to "Bcc:". IPMS.Heading.replied-to-ipm Mapped to "In-Reply-To:".Kille Standards Track [Page 89]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 IPMS.Heading.obsoleted-IPMs Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Supersedes:". The replaces theRFC 1327 field "Obsoletes:". Reverse mapping of theRFC 1327 field may be supported. IPMS.Heading.related-IPMs Mapped to "References:". IPMS.Heading.subject Mapped to "Subject:". The contents are converted to ASCII or T.61 (as defined inSection 3.5). CRLF will not be present in a valid X.400 field. Any CRLF present are not mapped, but are used as points at which the subject field shall be folded, unless anRFC1522 encoding is used. IPMS.Heading.expiry-time Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Expires:". The replaces theRFC 1327 field "Expiry-Date:". Reverse mapping of theRFC 1327 field may be supported. IPMS.Heading.reply-time Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Reply-By:". IPMS.Heading.reply-recipients Mapped to "Reply-To:". IPMS.Heading.importance Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Importance:". IPMS.Heading.sensitivity Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Sensitivity:". IPMS.Heading.autoforwarded Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Autoforwarded:". The standard extensions (Annex H of X.420 / ISO 10021-7) are mapped as follows: incomplete-copy Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Incomplete-Copy:". language Mapped to theRFC 822 field "Content-Language:", defined inRFC1766 [7]. This mapping may be made without loss of information. auto-submitted Map to the extendedRFC 822 field "Autosubmitted:".Kille Standards Track [Page 90]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 If theRFC 822 extended header is found, this shall be mapped onto anRFC 822 header, as described inSection 5.1.2. If a non-standard extension is found, it shall be discarded, unless the gateway understands the extension and can perform an appropriate mapping onto anRFC 822 header field. If extensions are discarded, the list is indicated in the extendedRFC 822 field "Discarded-X400- IPMS-Extensions:".5.3.4.1. Mapping the IPMS Body The mapping of the IPMS Body is defined inRFC 2157.5.3.4.2. Example Message An example message, illustrating a number of aspects is given below.Received: from mhs-relay.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP id <7906-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 30 May 1991 18:24:55 +0100X400-Received: by mta "mhs-relay.ac.uk" in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Thu, 30 May 1991 18:23:26 +0100X400-Received: by /PRMD=HMG/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 30 May 1991 18:20:27 +0100Message-Type: Multiple PartDate: Thu, 30 May 1991 18:20:27 +0100X400-Originator: Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gbX400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=HMG/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/;PC1000-910530172027-57D8]Original-Encoded-Information-Types: ia5X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)X400-Content-Identifier: Email ProblemsFrom: Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb (Tel +44 71 217 3487)Message-ID: <PC1000-910530172027-57D8*@MHS>To: Jim Craigie <NTIN36@gec-b.rutherford.ac.uk>, Tony Bates <tony@ean-relay.ac.uk>, Steve Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk>Subject: Email ProblemsSender: Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gbMIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary-1--boundary-1Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCIIHope you gentlemen.......Kille Standards Track [Page 91]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Regards,Stephen HarrisonUK GOSIP Project--boundary-1Content-Type: message/rfc822From: Urs Eppenberger <Eppenberger@verw.switch.ch>Message-ID:<562*/S=Eppenberger/OU=verw/O=switch/PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/@MHS>To: "Stephen.Harrison" <Stephen.Harrison@gosip-uk.hmg.gold-400.gb>Cc: kimura@bsdarc.bsd.fc.nec.co.jpSubject: Response to Email linkContent-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=boundary-2--boundary-2Dear Mr Harrison......--boundary-2----boundary-1--5.3.5. Mappings from an IP Notification Because of the service setting, IP Notifications will not usually need to be mapped by a MIXER gateway. A message is generated, with the following fields: From: Set to the IPMS.IPN.ipn-originator. To: Set to the recipient from MTS.MessageSubmissionEnvelope. If there have been redirects, the original address shall be used. Subject: Set to the string "X.400 Inter-Personal Notification" for a receipt notification and to "X.400 Inter-Personal Notification (failure)" for a non-receipt notification. Message-Type: Set to "InterPersonal Notification" References: Set to IPMS.IPN.subject-ipmKille Standards Track [Page 92]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions: Used for any discarded IPN extensions. The following EBNF is defined for the body of the Message. This format is defined to ensure that all information from an interpersonal notification is available to the end user in a uniform manner. ipn-body-format = ipn-description <CRLF> [ ipn-extra-information <CRLF> ] [ ipn-content-return ] ipn-description = ipn-receipt / ipn-non-receipt ipn-receipt = "Your message to:" preferred-recipient <CRLF> "was received at" receipt-time <CRLF> <CRLF> "This notification was generated" acknowledgement-mode <CRLF> "The following extra information was given:" <CRLF> ipn-suppl <CRLF> ipn-non-receipt = "Your message to:" preferred-recipient <CRLF> ipn-reason ipn-reason = ipn-discarded / ipn-auto-forwarded ipn-discarded = "was discarded for the following reason:" discard-reason <CRLF> ipn-auto-forwarded = "was automatically forwarded." <CRLF> [ "The following comment was made:" auto-comment ] ipn-extra-information = "The following information types were converted:" encoded-info ipn-content-return = "The Original Message is not available" / "The Original Message follows:" preferred-recipient = mailbox receipt-time = date-time auto-comment = printablestring ipn-suppl = printablestringKille Standards Track [Page 93]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 discard-reason = "Expired" / "Obsoleted" / "User Subscription Terminated" / "IPM Deleted" acknowledgement-mode = "Manually" / "Automatically" The mappings for elements of the common fields of IPMS.IPN (IPMS.CommonFields) onto this structure and the message header are: subject-ipm Mapped to "References:" ipn-originator Mapped to "From:". ipn-preferred-recipient Mapped to EBNF.preferred-recipient conversion-eits Mapped to EBNF.encoded-info in EBNF.ipn-extra-information The mappings for elements of IPMS.IPN.non-receipt-fields (IPMS.NonReceiptFields) are: non-receipt-reason Used to select between EBNF.ipn-discarded and EBNF.ipn-auto- forwarded discard-reason Mapped to EBNF.discard-reason auto-forward-comment Mapped to EBNF.auto-comment returned-ipm This applies only to non-receipt notifications. EBNF.ipn- content-return shall always be omitted for receipt notifications, and always be present in non-receipt notifications. If present, the second option of EBNF.ipn-content-return is chosen, and the message is included. In this case, the message is formatted as multipart/mixed, and the returned message included as message/rfc822 after the text body part. Otherwise the first option is chosen. The mappings for elements of IPMS.IPN.receipt-fields (IPMS.ReceiptFields) are: receipt-time Mapped to EBNF.receipt-timeKille Standards Track [Page 94]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 acknowledgement-mode Mapped to EBNF.acknowledgement-mode suppl-receipt-info Mapped to EBNF.ipn-suppl An example notification is: From: Steve Kille <steve@cs.ucl.ac.uk> To: Julian Onions <jpo@computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk> Subject: X.400 Inter-personal Notification Message-Type: InterPersonal Notification References: <1229.614418325@UK.AC.NOTT.CS> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 08:45:25 +0100 Your message to: Steve Kille <steve@cs.ucl.ac.uk> was automatically forwarded. The following comment was made: Sent on to a random destination The following information types were converted: g3fax5.3.6. Mappings from the MTS Abstract Service This section describes the MTS mappings for User Messages (IPM and IPN). This mapping is defined by specifying the mapping of MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope. The following extensions toRFC 822 are defined to support this mapping: mts-field = "X400-MTS-Identifier" ":" mts-msg-id / "X400-Originator" ":" mailbox / "X400-Recipients" ":" 1#mailbox / "Original-Encoded-Information-Types" ":" encoded-info / "X400-Content-Type" ":" mts-content-type / "X400-Content-Identifier" ":" printablestring / "Priority" ":" priority / "Originator-Return-Address" ":" 1#mailbox / "DL-Expansion-History" ":" mailbox ";" date-time ";" / "Conversion" ":" prohibition / "Conversion-With-Loss" ":" prohibition / "Delivery-Date" ":" date-time / "Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions" ":" 1#( object-identifier / labelled-integer ) prohibition = "Prohibited" / "Allowed"Kille Standards Track [Page 95]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 mts-msg-id = "[" global-id ";" *text "]" mts-content-type = "P2" / labelled-integer / object-identifier priority = "normal" / "non-urgent" / "urgent" The mappings for each element of MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope can now be considered. Where the specified action does not result in an extended element being mapped, the criticality associated with this element shall be considered. If the element is marked as critical for transfer or for delivery, the message shall be non delivered by the gateway because a critical extension cannot be correctly handled. MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.message-delivery-identifier Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "X400-MTS-Identifier:". MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.message-delivery-time Discarded, as this time will be represented in an appropriate trace element. The mappings for elements of MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.other-fields (MTS.OtherMessageDeliveryFields) are: content-type Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "X400-Content-Type:". The string "P2" is retained for backwards compatibility withRFC 987. This shall not be generated, and either the EBNF.labelled-integer or EBNF.object-identifier encoding used. originator-name Mapped to the SMTP originator, and to the extendedRFC 822 field "X400-Originator:". This is described inSection 4.6.2. original-encoded-information-types Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Original-Encoded- Information-Types:". priority Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Priority:". delivery-flags If the conversion-prohibited bit is set, add an extendedRFC 822 field "Conversion:". this-recipient-name and other-recipient-names The handling of these elements is described inSection 4.6.2.Kille Standards Track [Page 96]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 originally-intended-recipient-name The handling of this element is described inSection 4.6.2. converted-encoded-information-types Discarded. This information will be mapped in the trace. message-submission-time Mapped to Date:. content-identifier Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "X400-Content-Identifier:". InRFC 1327, this was "Content-Identifier:". This has been changed to avoid confusion with MIME defined fields. Gateways which reverse map, may support the old field. If any extensions (MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.other- fields.extensions) are present, and they are marked as critical for transfer or delivery, then the message shall be rejected. The extensions (MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.other-fields.extensions) are mapped as follows. conversion-with-loss-prohibited If set to MTS.ConversionWithLossProhibited.conversion-with-loss- prohibited, then add the extendedRFC 822 field "Conversion-With- Loss:". requested-delivery-method Mapped to a comment, as described inSection 4.6.2.2. originator-return-address Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "Originator-Return-Address:". physical-forwarding-address-request physical-delivery-modes registered-mail-type recipient-number-for-advice physical-rendition-attributes physical-delivery-report-request physical-forwarding-prohibited These elements are only appropriate for physical delivery. They are represented as comments in the "X400-Recipients:" field, as described inSection 4.6.2.2. originator-certificate message-token content-confidentiality-algorithm-identifierKille Standards Track [Page 97]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 content-integrity-check message-origin-authentication-check message-security-label proof-of-delivery-request These elements imply use of security services not available in theRFC 822 environment. If they are marked as critical for transfer or delivery, then the message shall be rejected. Otherwise they are discarded. redirection-history This is described inSection 4.6.2. dl-expansion-history Each element is mapped to an extendedRFC 822 field "DL- Expansion-History:". These fileds shall be ordered in the message header, so that the most recent expansion comes first (same order as trace). If any MTS (or MTA) Extensions not specified in X.400 are present, and they are marked as critical for transfer or delivery, then the message shall be rejected. If they are not so marked, they can safely be discarded. The list of discarded fields shall be indicated in the extended header "Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions:".5.3.7. Mappings from the MTA Abstract Service There are some mappings at the MTA Abstract Service level which are done for IPM and IPN. These can be derived from MTA.MessageTransferEnvelope. The reasons for the mappings at this level, and the violation of layering are: - Allowing for multiple recipients to share a singleRFC 822 message - Making the X.400 trace information available on theRFC 822 side - Making any information on deferred delivery available The SMTP recipients are calculated from the full list of X.400 recipients. This is all of the members of MTA.MessageTransferEnvelope.per-recipient-fields being passed through the gateway, where the responsibility bit is set. In some cases, a differentRFC 822 message would be calculated for each recipient, due to differing service requests for each recipient. As discussed in 4.6.2.2, this specification allows either for multiple messages to be generated, or for the per-recipient information to be discarded.Kille Standards Track [Page 98]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The following EBNF is defined for extendedRFC 822 headers: mta-field = "X400-Received" ":" x400-trace / "Deferred-Delivery" ":" date-time / "Latest-Delivery-Time" ":" date-time x400-trace = "by" md-and-mta ";" [ "deferred until" date-time ";" ] [ "converted" "(" encoded-info ")" ";" ] [ "attempted" md-or-mta ";" ] action-list ";" arrival-time md-and-mta = [ "mta" mta "in" ] global-id mta = word arrival-time = date-time md-or-mta = "MD" global-id / "MTA" mta Action-list = 1#action action = "Redirected" / "Expanded" / "Relayed" / "Rerouted" Note the EBNF.mta is encoded as 822.word. If the character set does not allow encoding as 822.atom, the 822.quoted-string encoding is used. If MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.deferred-delivery-time is present, it is used to generate a Deferred-Delivery: field. X.400 does not make this information available at the MTS level on delivery, because it requires that this service is provided by the first MTA. In the event that the first MTA does not provide this service, the function may optionally be implemented by the gateway: that is, the gateway may hold the message until the time specified in the protocol element. Thus, the value of this element will usually be in the past. For this reason, the extendedRFC 822 field is primarily for information. If MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.extensions.dl-expansion-prohibited is present and set to dl-expansion-probited, the gateway may reject that message on the basis that it is unable to control distribution list expansion beyond the gateway. The service relating to this is described inSection 2.3.1.2. This approach was not specified inRFC1327. If it is found to be useful, it may be made mandatory in future versions of MIXER.Kille Standards Track [Page 99]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 If MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.extensions.recipient-reassignment- prohibited is present and set to recipeint-reassignment-probited, the gateway may reject that message on the basis that it is unable to control distribution list expansion beyond the gateway. The service relating to this is described inSection 2.3.1.2. This approach was not specified inRFC 1327. If it is found to be useful, it may be made mandatory in future versions of MIXER. Merge MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.trace-information, and MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.internal-trace-information to produce a single ordered trace list. If Internal trace from other management domains has not been stripped, this may require complex interleaving. Where an element of internal trace and external trace are identical, except for the MTA in the internal trace, only the internal trace element shall be presented. Use this to generate a sequence of "X400-Received:" fields. The only difference between external trace and internal trace will be the extra MTA information in internal trace elements. When generating anRFC 822 message all trace fields (X400-Received and Received) shall be at the beginning of the header, before any other fields. Trace shall be in chronological order, with the most recent element at the front of the message. This ordering is determined from the order of the fields, not from timestamps in the trace, as there is no guarantee of clock synchronisation. A simple example trace (external) is: X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Tue, 20 Jun 89 19:25:11 +0100 A more complex example (internal): X400-Received: by mta "UK.AC.UCL.CS" in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD=Gold 400/C=GB/ ; deferred until Tue, 20 Jun 89 14:24:22 +0100 ; converted (undefined, g3fax) ; attempted MD /ADMD=Foo/C=GB/ ; Relayed, Expanded, Redirected ; Tue, 20 Jun 89 19:25:11 +0100 The gateway itself shall add a single line of trace information, indicating MIXER conversion by use of a comment. For example: Received: from isode.com by isode.com (MIXER Conversion followingRFC 1327); Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:46:03 +0000 If SMTP is being used,Appendix A shall also be followed, which includes optional mappings to extension parameters.Kille Standards Track [Page 100]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19985.3.8. Mappings from Report Delivery that only reports destined for the MTS user will be mapped. Some additional services are also taken from the MTA service. X.400 Delivery Reports are Mapped onto Delivery Status Notifications, as defined by NOTARY [28].5.3.8.1. MTS Mappings A Delivery Report service will be represented as MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope, which comprises of per-report-fields (MTS.PerReportDeliveryFields) and per-recipient-fields. The enclosing message is a MIME message of content type multipart/report, with report-type=delivery-status, which is generated with the following fields: From: An administrator at the gateway system. To: A mapping of the MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report-destination-name. This is also the SMTP recipient. Message-Type: Set to "Delivery Report". This is strictly redundant, but retained for backwards compatibility withRFC 1327. Subject: The EBNF for the subject line is: subject-line = "Delivery-Report" "(" status ")" [ "for" destination ] status = "success" / "failure" / "success and failures" destination = mailbox / "MTA" word The subject is intended to give a clear indication as to the nature of the message, and summarise its contents. EBNF.status is set according to whether the recipients reported on are all successes, all failures, or a mixture. It is common for a report to reference a single recipient, in which case a subject line giving using all of the options of EBNF.status can be used. This gives useful information to the recipient. Where information varies between reported recpients, the options cannot be used. The EBNF.destination is used to indicate the addresses in the reports. If the report is for a single address, EBNF.mailbox is used to give theRFC 822Kille Standards Track [Page 101]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 representation of the address. If all of the reported recpients reference the same MTA this is included in EBNF.word. The MTA is determined from the delivery report's trace. The format of the body of the message follows the NOTARY delivery status notification format, and is defined to ensure that all information is conveyed to theRFC 822 user in a consistent manner. The format is structured as if it was a message coming from the gateway, with three body parts. The first body part is ASCII text structured as follows: 1. A few lines giving keywords to indicate the original message. 2. A human summary of the status of each recipient being reported on. The second (mandatory) body part is the NOTARY delivery status notification, which contains detailed information extracted from the report. This information may be critical to diagnosing an obscure problem. The third (optional) body part contains the returned message (return of content). This structure is useful to theRFC 822 recipient, as it enables the original message to be extracted. For negative reports it shall be included if the original message is available. For positive reports headers from the message shall be included if the original message is available. The first body part containing the user oriented description is of type text/plain. The format of this body part is defined below as EBNF.dr-user-info. dr-user-info = dr-summary <CRLF> dr-recipients <CRLF> dr-content-return dr-content-return = "The Original Message is not available" / "The Original Message follows:" dr-summary = "This report relates to your message:" <CRLF> content-correlator <CRLF> <CRLF> "of" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF> dr-recipients = *(dr-recipient <CRLF> <CRLF>) dr-recipient = dr-recip-success / dr-recip-failureKille Standards Track [Page 102]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 dr-recip-success = "Your message was successfully delivered to:" mailbox "at" date-time dr-recip-failure = "Your message was not delivered to:" mailbox <CRLF> "for the following reason:" *word report-point = [ "mta" mta-name "in" ] global-id content-correlator = *word mta-name = word EBNF.dr-summary The EBNF.content-correlator is taken from the content correlator (or content identifier if there is no content correlator) and the EBNF.date-time from the trace, as described inSection 5.3.8.3. LWSP may be added to improve the layout of the body part. EBNF.dr-recipients There is an element for each recipient in the delivery report. In each case, EBNF.mailbox is taken from theRFC 822 form of the originally specified recipient, which is taken from the originally specified recipient element if present or from the actual recipient. When reporting success, the message delivery time is used to derive EBNF.date-time. When reporting failure, the information includes a human readable interpretation of the X.400 diagnostic and reason codes, and the supplementary information. EBNF.dr-content-return This is set according to whether or not the content is being returned. The EBNF of this body part is designed for english-speaking users. The language of the strings in the EBNF may be altered.Kille Standards Track [Page 103]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The EBNF used in the delivery status notification is: dr-per-message-fields = / "X400-Conversion-Date" ":" date-time / "X400-Subject-Submision-Identifier" ":" mts-msg-id / "X400-Content-Identifier" ":" printablestring / "X400-Content-Type" ":" mts-content-type / "X400-Original-Encoded-Information-Types" ":" encoded-info / "X400-Originator-and-DL-Expansion-History" ":" mailbox ";" date-time ";" / "X400-Reporting-DL-Name" ":" mailbox / "X400-Content-Correlator" ":" content-correlator / "X400-Recipient-Info" ":" recipient-info / "X400-Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information" ":" x400-trace / dr-extensions dr-per-recipient-fields = / "X400-Redirect-Recipient" ":" "x400" ";" std-or / "X400-Mapped-Redirect-Recipient" ":" "rfc822" ";" mailbox / "X400-Converted-EITs" ":" encoded-info ";" / "X400-Delivery-Time" ":" date-time / "X400-Type-of-MTS-User" ":" labelled-integer / "X400-Last-Trace" ":" [ encoded-info ] date-time / "X400-Supplementary-Info" ":" <"> printablestring <"> ";" / "X400-Redirection-History" ":" redirect-history-item / "X400-Physical-Forwarding-Address" ":" mailbox / "X400-Originally-Specified-Recipient-Number" ":" integer / dr-extensions dr-extensions = "X400-Discarded-DR-Extensions" ":" 1# (object-identifier / labelled-integer) dr-diagnostic = "Reason" labelled-integer-2 [ ";" "Diagnostic" labelled-integer-2 ] A body part of type delivery status, as defined by NOTARY, is generated. MIXER extends this delivery status notification (DSN) specification, by defining additional per message fields in EBNF.dr- per-message-fields and additional per recipient fields in EBNF.dr- per-recipient-fields. These are used as extensions to DSN.per- message-fields and DSN.per-recipient-fields. MIXER also defines a new NOTARY address type "x400", with encoding of EBNF.std-or. A directory name may be inluded as anRFC 822 comment.Kille Standards Track [Page 104]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The following DSN.per-message-fields are always generated: DSN.reporting-mta-field The DSN.mta-name-type is set to "x400", and this string is reserved by MIXER. The DSN.mta-name has its syntax specified by EBNF.report-point, with the information derived from the first element of the DR's trace. DSN.arrival-date-field This is derived from the date of the MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields.last-trace-info.arrival-time of the first recipient in the report. The following two EBNF.per-message-fields are generated by the MIXER gateway: DSN.dsn-gateway-field The type is set to "dns" and the domain set to the local domain of the gateway. X400-Conversion-Date: The EBNF.date-time is set to the time of the MIXER conversion. The elements of MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope.per-report-fields are mapped as follows onto the DSN per message fields as follows: subject-submission-identifier Mapped to DSN.original-envelope-id-field. The encoding of this MTS Identifier follows the format EBNF.mts-msg-id. content-identifier Mapped to X400-Content-Identifier: content-type Mapped to X400-Content-Type: original-encoded-information-types Mapped to X400-Encoded-Info: The extensions from MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope.per-report- fields.extensions are mapped as follows: originator-and-DL-expansion-history Each element is mapped to an "X400-Originator-and-DL-Expansion- History:" They shall be ordered so that the most recent expansion comes first in the header (same order as trace).Kille Standards Track [Page 105]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 reporting-DL-name Mapped to X400-Reporting-DL-Name: content-correlator If the content correlator starts with the string "SMTP/NOTARY ENVID: ", then the remainder of the content correlator is mapped to the DSN original-envelope-id field. If this is not the case, the content correlator is mapped to X400-Content-Correlator:, provided that the encoding is IA5String (this will always be the case). message-security-label reporting-MTA-certificate report-origin-authentication-check These security parameters will not be present unless there is an error in a remote MTA. If they are present, they shall be discarded in preference to discarding the whole report. They shall be listed in the X400-Discarded-DR-Extensions: field. If there are any other DR extensions, they shall also be discarded and listed in the X400-Discarded-DR-Extensions: field. For each element of MTS.ReportDeliveryEnvelope.per-recipient-fields, a set of DSN.per-recipient-fields is generated. The fields are filled in as follows: actual-recipient-name If originally-intended-recipient-name is not present, generate a DSN.original-recipient-field fields, with DSN.address-type of "rfc822", and with anRFC 822 mailbox generated from the address encoded as specified by NOTARY. Also generate a DSN.final- recipient-field field, which holds the X.400 representation of the same address. If the directory name is present, it shall be added as a trailing comment in the X.400 form. If originally-intended-recipient-name is present, generate an "X400-Mapped-Redirect-Recipient:" field, with DSN.address-type of "rfc822", and with anRFC 822 mailbox generated from the address encoded as specified by NOTARY. Also generate an "X400-Redirect- Recipient:" field, which holds the X.400 representation of the same address. If the directory name is present, it shall be added as a trailing comment in the X.400 form.Kille Standards Track [Page 106]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 report If it is MTS.Report.delivery, then set DSN.action-field to "delivered", and set "X400-Delivery-Time:" and "X400-Type-of-MTS- User:" from the information in the report. DSN.status field is set to "2.0.0". If it is MTS.Report.non-delivery, then set DSN.action-field to "failed". DSN.diagnostic-code-field is encoded according to the syntax EBNF.dr-diagnostic, with the labelled integers set from the reason and diagnostic codes. DSN.status-field is derived from the reason and diagnostic codes, as described below. converted-encoded-information-types Set X400-Converted-EITs: originally-intended-recipient Generate a DSN.final-recipient-field field, with DSN.address-type of "rfc822", and with anRFC 822 mailbox generated from the address encoded as specified by NOTARY. Also generate a DSN.original-recipient-field field, which holds the X.400 representation of the same address. If the directory name is present, it shall be added as a trailing comment in the X.400 form. supplementary-info Set X400-Supplementary-Info: redirection-history Generate an "X400-Redirection-History:" field for each redirect history element. The fields are ordered with the earliest redirect first. physical-forwarding-address Set X400-Physical-Forwarding-Address as a mailbox, with directory name in comment if present. recipient-certificate Discard proof-of-delivery Discard Any unknown extensions shall be discarded, irrespective of criticality. All discarded extensions shall be included in a "X400- Discarded-DR-Extensions:" field.Kille Standards Track [Page 107]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The number from the MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields.originally- specified-recipient-number shall be mapped to "X400-Originally- Specified-Recipient-Number:", in order to facilitate reverse mapping of delivery reports. The original message shall be included in the delivery status notification if it is available. The original message will usually be available at the gateway, as discussed inSection 5.2. If the original message is available, but is not a legal message format, a dump of the ASN.1 may be included, encoded as application/octet- string. This is recommended, but not required. Where the original message is included, it shall be encoded according to the MIME specifications as content type message/rfc822.5.3.8.2. Status Code Mappings This section defines the mappings from X.400 diagnostic and status codes to the NOTARY Status field.C/D X400 meaning DSN code Means0/Any Transfer failure (may be temporary) 4.4.0 Other net/route1/Any Unable to transfer 5.0.0 Other, unknown2/Any Conversion not performed 5.6.3 Conv not supported3/Any Physical rendition not performed 5.6.0 Other media error4/Any Physical delivery not performed 5.1.0 Other address status5/Any Restricted delivery 5.7.16/Any Directory operation unsuccessful 5.4.3 Routing server failure7/Any Deferred delivery not performed 5.3.3 Not capable1/0 Unrecognized OR name 5.1.11/1 Ambiguous OR name 5.1.41/2 MTS congestion 4.3.11/3 Loop detected 5.4.61/4 Recipient unavailable 4.2.11/5 Delivery time expired 4.4.71/6 Encoded information types unsupported 5.6.1 Media unsupp.1/7 Content too long 5.2.32/8 Conversion impractical 5.6.32/9 Conversion prohibited 5.6.31/10 Implicit conversion not subscribed 5.6.31/11 Invalid arguments 5.5.21/12 Content syntax error 5.5.21/13 Size constraint violation 5.5.21/14 Protocol violation 5.5.0Kille Standards Track [Page 108]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19981/15 Content type not supported 5.6.1 Media unsupp.1/16 Too many recipients 5.5.31/17 No bilateral agreement 5.4.41/18 Unsupported critical function 5.3.3 System not capable2/19 Conversion with loss prohibited 5.6.22/20 Line too long 5.6.02/21 Page split 5.6.02/22 Pictorial symbol loss 5.6.22/23 Punctuation symbol loss 5.6.22/24 Alphabetic character loss 5.6.22/25 Multiple information loss 5.6.21/26 Recipient reassignment prohibited 5.4.0 Undefined net/route1/27 Redirection loop detected 5.4.61/28 DL expansion prohibited 5.7.21/29 No DL submit permission 5.7.1 Delivery not authorized1/30 DL expansion failure 4.2.44/31 Physical rendition attrs not supported 5.6.0 Undefined media error4/32-45 Various physical mail stuff 5.1.0 Other address status1/43 New address unknown 5.1.6 Destination mbox moved1/46 Secure messaging error 5.7.0 Other security status2/47 Unable to downgrade 5.3.3 System not capable0/48 Unable to complete transfer 5.3.4 Message too big0/49 Transfer attempts limit reached 4.4.7 Delivery time expired5.3.8.3. MTA Mappings The single SMTP recipient is constructed from MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report-destination-name, using the mappings of Chapter 4. Unlike with a user message, this information is not available at the MTS level. The following additional mappings are made, which results in fields in the outer header of the DSN. MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.report-destination-name This is used to generate the To: field. MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.identifier Mapped to the extendedRFC 822 field "X400-MTS-Identifier:". It may also be used to derive a "Message-Id:" field.Kille Standards Track [Page 109]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.trace-information and MTA.ReportTransferEnvelope.internal-trace-information Mapped onto the extendedRFC 822 field "X400-Received:", as described inSection 5.3.7. Date: is generated from the first element of trace. The following additional mappings are made, which result in per message fields in the DSN body part: MTA.PerRecipientReportTransferFields.last-trace-information Mapped to X400-Last-Trace:". MTA.PerReportTransferFields.subject-intermediate-trace- information Mapped to "X400-Subject-Intermediate-Trace- Information:". These fields are ordered so that the most recent trace element comes first.5.3.8.4. Example Delivery Reports This section contains sample delivery reports. These are the same examples used inRFC 1327, and so they also illustrate the changes betweenRFC 1327 and this document. Example Delivery Report 1: Received: from cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk via Delivery Reports Channel id <27699-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:39 +0000 From: UCL-CS MTA <postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk> To: S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for H.Hildegard@bbn.com Message-Type: Delivery Report Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:39 +0000 Message-ID: <"bells.cs.u.694:07.01.91.15.48.34"@cs.ucl.ac.uk> X400-Content- Identifier: Greetings. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary=boundary-1 --boundary-1 This report relates to your message: Greetings. of Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:20 +0000 Your message was not delivered to H.Hildegard@bbn.com for the following reason: Bad Address MTA 'bbn.com' gives error message (USER) Unknown user name inKille Standards Track [Page 110]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 "H.Hildegard@bbn.com" The Original Message follows: --boundary-1 content-type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: x400; bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/ Arrival-Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:34 +0000 DSN-Gateway: dns; bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk X400-Conversion-Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:40 +0000 Original-Envelope-Id: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;<1803.665941698@UK.AC.UCL.CS>] X400-Content-Identifier: Greetings. X400-Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information: /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; arrival Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:20 +0000 action Relayed X400- Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information: /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; arrival Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:18 +0000 action Relayed Original-Recipient:rfc822; H.Hildegard@bbn.com Final-Recipient: x400; /RFC-822=H.Hildegard(a)bbn.com/OU=cs/O=ucl/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; Action: failure Status: 5.1.1 Diagnostic-Code: x400; Reason 1 (Unable-To-Transfer); Diagnostic 0 (Unrecognised-ORName) X400-Last-Trace: (ia5) Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:18 +0000; X400-Originally-Specified-Recipient-Number: 1 X400-Supplementary-Info: "MTA 'bbn.com' gives error message (USER) Unknown user name in "H.Hildegard@bbn.com""; --boundary-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from glenlivet.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with SMTP inbound id <27689-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:21 +0000 To: H.Hildegard@bbn.com Subject: Greetings. Phone: +44-71-380-7294 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 91 15:48:18 +0000 Message-ID: <1803.665941698@UK.AC.UCL.CS> From: Steve Kille <S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Steve --boundary-1--Kille Standards Track [Page 111]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 Example Delivery Report 2: Received: from cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk via Delivery Reports Channel id <27718-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:49:11 +0000 X400-Received: by mta "bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk" in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; Relayed; Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:49:08 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=DGC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/; Relayed; Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:40 +0000 From: UCL-CS MTA <postmaster@cs.ucl.ac.uk> To: S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.uk Subject: Delivery Report (failure) for j.nosuchuser@dle.cambridge.DGC.gold-400.gb Message-Type: Delivery Report Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:46:11 +0000 Message-ID: <"DLE/910207154840Z/000"@cs.ucl.ac.uk> X400-Content-Identifier: A useful mess... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary=boundary-1 --boundary-1 This report relates to your message: A useful mess... of Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:43:20 +0000 Your message was not delivered to j.nosuchuser@dle.cambridge.DGC.gold-400.gb for the following reason: Bad Address DG 21187: (CEO POA) Unknown addressee. The Original Message is not available --boundary-1 content-type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: x400; /PRMD=DGC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ Arrival-Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:48:40 +0000 DSN-Gateway: dns; bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk X400-Conversion-Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 15:49:12 +0000 Original-Envelope-Id:Kille Standards Track [Page 112]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/;<1796.665941626@UK.AC.UCL.CS>] X400-Content-Identifier: A useful mess... Original-Recipient:rfc822; j.nosuchuser@dle.cambridge.DGC.gold-400.gb Final-Recipient: x400; /I=j/S=nosuchuser/OU=dle/O=cambridge/PRMD=DGC/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ Action: failure Status: 5.1.1 Diagnostic-Code: x400; Reason 1 (Unable-To-Transfer); Diagnostic 0 (Unrecognised-ORName) X400-Supplementary-Info: "DG 21187: (CEO POA) Unknown addressee." X400-Originally-Specified-Recipient-Number: 1 --boundary-1--5.3.9. Probe This is an MTS internal issue. Any probe shall be serviced by the gateway, as there is no equivalentRFC 822 functionality. The value of the reply is dependent on whether the gateway could service an MTS Message with the values specified in the probe. The reply shall make use of MTS.SupplementaryInformation to indicate that the probe was serviced by the gateway.Kille Standards Track [Page 113]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix A - Mappings Specific to SMTP This Appendix is specific to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (RFC821). It describes specific changes in the context of this protocol. When MIXER is used with SMTP, conformance to this appendix is mandatory. 1. Probes When servicing a probe, as described insection 5.3.9, use may be made of the SMTP VRFY command to increase the accuracy of information contained in the delivery report. 2. Long Lines SMTP is a text oriented protocol, and is required to support a line length of at least 1000 characters. Some implementations do not support line lengths greater than 1000 characters. This can cause problems. Where body parts have long lines, it is recommended to use a MIME encoding that folds lines (quoted printable). 3. SMTP Extensions There are several RFCs that specify extensions to SMTP. Most of these are not relevant to MIXER. The NOTARY work to support delivery report defines extensions which are relevant [29]. Use of these extensions by a MIXER gateway is optional. If these extensions are used, they shall be used in the manner described below. 3.1. SMTP Extension mapping to X.400 Mappings are defined for the following extensions: NOTIFY This is used to set the report and non-delivery bits of MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.per-recipient-indicators. If the value is NEVER, both bits are zero. If SUCCESS is present, the report bit is set. Otherwise, the non-delivery-report bit is set. If the gateway uses the NOTIFY command, it shall perform this mapping in all cases. ORCPT If the address type of the original recipient is "x400" or "rfc822", this may be used at the MTS level, to generate an element of redirection history, with the redirection date being the date of conversion and the reason set to "alias".Kille Standards Track [Page 114]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 ENVID If present, this may be used to generate a content correlator. This is used rather than the MTS Identifier, as the ENVID is unique for the UA only and is likely to be too large to map to an MTS identifier. The content correlator is encoded as an IA5 String containing the ENVID and prefixed by the string: "SMTP/NOTARY ENVID: " If the ENVID starts with the string "X400-MTS-Identifier: ", then this ENVID was generated from an X.400 MTS Identifier. The reverse mapping defined in Section 3.2 ofAppendix A shall not be used, as this may cause problems in certain situations (e.g., where the message was expanded by an Internet mailing list). 3.2. X.400 Mapping to SMTP Extensions The following extensions may be used as a part of the MIXER mapping: NOTIFY The originator-report and originator-non-delivery-report bits of MTA.PerRecipientMessageTransferFields.per-recipient-indicators determine how this is used. If both bits are zero, the parameter is NEVER. If the report bit is set, SUCCESS is used. Otherwise, FAILURE is used. If this is done, the gateway shall not generate a delivery report for this recipient, unless this is needed in the case where the originating MTA service report requirements differ from the user requirements. Additional originating MTA requrirements are satisfied by the gateway. ORCPT If the MTS.perRecipientDeliveryFields.originally-intended- recipient-name is present, the ORCPT command may be used to carry this value, using the "x400" syntax. ENVID This may be generated, with the value taken from the MTS.MessageDeliveryEnvelope.message-delivery-identifer. If this is done, it shall be encoded as EBNF.mts-msg-id, preceded by the string "X400-MTS-Identifier: ". RET If MTA.PerMessageTransferFields.per-message-indicators.content- return-request is set to FALSE, the parameter RET may be set to HDRS, to specify return of headers only.Kille Standards Track [Page 115]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix B - Mapping with X.400(1984) This appendix defines modifications to the mapping for use with X.400(1984). The X.400(1984) protocols are a proper subset of X.400(1988). When mapping from X.400(1984) toRFC 822, no changes to this specification are needed. When mapping fromRFC 822 to X.400(1984), no use can be made of 1988 specific features. No use of such features is made at the MTS level. The heading extension feature is used at the IPMS level, and this shall be replaced by theRFC 987 approach. All header information which would usually be mapped into therfc-822-heading- list extension is mapped into a single IA5 body part, which is the first body part in the message. This body part will start with the string "RFC-822-Headers:" as the first line. The headers then follow this line. This specification requires correct reverse mapping of this format, either from 1988 or 1984.RFC 822 extended headers which could be mapped into X.400(1988) elements, are also mapped to the body part. In an environment whereRFC 822 is of major importance, it may be desirable for downgrading to consider the case where the message was originated in anRFC 822 system, and mapped according to this specification. Therfc-822-heading-list extension may be mapped according to this appendix. When parsing std-or, the following restrictions shall be observed: - Only the 84/88 attributes identified in the table inSection 4.2 are present. - No teletex encoding is allowed. If an address violates this, it shall be treated as anRFC 822 address, which will usually lead to encoding as a DDA "RFC-822". It is possible that attributes of zero length may be present in an OR Address. This is not legal in 1988, except for ADMD where the case is explicitly described inSection 4.3.5. Attributes of zero length are deprecated (the attribute shall be omitted), and will therefore be unusual. However, some systems generate them and rely on them. Therefore, any null attribute shall be enoded using the std-or encoding (e.g., /O=/).Kille Standards Track [Page 116]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 If a non-Teletex Common Name (CN) is present, it shall be mapped onto a Domain Defined Attribute "Common". This is in line withRFC 1328 on X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading [22]. This specification defines a mapping of the Internet message framework to X.400. Body part mappings are defined inRFC2157 [6], which relies on X.400(88) features. Downgrading to X.400(84) for body parts is defined inRFC 1496 (HARPOON), which shall be followed in the context of this appendix [5].Kille Standards Track [Page 117]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix C -RFC 822 Extensions for X.400 access This appendix defines a number of optional mappings which may be provided to give access fromRFC 822 to a number of X.400 services. These mappings are beyond the basic scope of this specification. There has been a definite demand to use extendedRFC 822 as a mechanism to access X.400, and these extensions provide access to certain features. If this functionality is provided, this appendix shall be followed. The following headings are defined: extended-heading = "Prevent-NonDelivery-Report" ":" / "Generate-Delivery-Report" ":" / "Alternate-Recipient" ":" prohibition / "Disclose-Recipients" ":" prohibition / "X400-Content-Return" ":" prohibition Prevent-NonDelivery-Report and Generate-Delivery-Report allow setting of MTS.PerRecipientSubmissionFields.originator-report-request. The setting will be the same for all recipients. Alternate-Recipient, Disclose-Recipients, and X400-Content-Return allow for override of the default settings for MTS.PerMessageIndicators. Use of NOTARY mechanisms is a preferred meachanism for controlling these parameters.Kille Standards Track [Page 118]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix D - Object Identifier Assignment The following Object Identifiers shall be used. internet ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER { iso org(3) dod(6) 1 } -- fromRFC1155 mail OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 7 } -- IANA assigned mixer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mail mixer(1) } -- inherited fromRFC1495 mixer-core OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mixer core(3) } id-rfc-822-field-list OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 2} id-dsn-header-list OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 3} id-dsn-field-list OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 4} eit-mixer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 5} -- the MIXER pseudo-EIT This object identifier for id-rfc-822-field-list is different to the one assigned inRFC 1327, which was erroneous.Kille Standards Track [Page 119]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix E - BNF Summary boolean = "TRUE" / "FALSE" numericstring = *(DIGIT / " ") printablestring = *( ps-char ) ps-restricted-char = 1DIGIT / 1ALPHA / " " / "'" / "+" / "," / "-" / "." / "/" / ":" / "=" / "?" ps-delim = "(" / ")" ps-char = ps-delim / ps-restricted-char ps-encoded = *( ps-restricted-char / ps-encoded-char ) ps-encoded-char = "(a)" ; (@) / "(p)" ; (%) / "(b)" ; (!) / "(q)" ; (") / "(u)" ; (_) / "(l)" ; "(" / "(r)" ; ")" / "(" 3DIGIT ")" teletex-string = *( ps-char / t61-encoded ) t61-encoded = "{" 1* t61-encoded-char "}" t61-encoded-char = 3DIGIT teletex-and-or-ps = [ printablestring ] [ "*" teletex-string ] labelled-integer ::= [ key-string ] "(" numericstring ")" labelled-integer-2 ::= [ numericstring ] "(" key-string ")" key-string = *key-char key-char = <a-z, A-Z, 0-9, and "-"> object-identifier ::= oid-comp object-identifier | oid-comp oid-comp ::= [ key-string ] "(" numericstring ")" encoded-info = 1#encoded-typeKille Standards Track [Page 120]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 encoded-type = built-in-eit / object-identifier built-in-eit = "Undefined" ; undefined (0) / "Telex" ; tLX (1) / "IA5-Text" ; iA5Text (2) / "G3-Fax" ; g3Fax (3) / "TIF0" ; tIF0 (4) / "Teletex" ; tTX (5) / "Videotex" ; videotex (6) / "Voice" ; voice (7) / "SFD" ; sFD (8) / "TIF1" ; tIF1 (9) encoded-pn = [ given "." ] *( initial "." ) surname given = 2*<ps-char not including "."> initial = ALPHA surname = printablestring std-or-address = 1*( "/" attribute "=" value ) "/" attribute = standard-type / "RFC-822" / dd-key "." std-printablestring std-or-address-input = [ sep pair ] sep pair *( sep pair ) sep [ pair sep ] sep = "/" / ";" pair = input-attribute "=" value input-attribute = attribute / dd-key ":" std-printablestring standard-type = key-string dd-key = key-string value = std-printablestring std-printablestring = *( std-char / std-pair ) std-char = <"{", "}", "*", and any ps-charKille Standards Track [Page 121]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 except "/" and "=" > std-pair = "$" ps-char global-id = std-or-address mta-field = "X400-Received" ":" x400-trace / "Deferred-Delivery" ":" date-time / "Latest-Delivery-Time" ":" date-time x400-trace = "by" md-and-mta ";" [ "deferred until" date-time ";" ] [ "converted" "(" encoded-info ")" ";" ] [ "attempted" md-or-mta ";" ] action-list ";" arrival-time md-and-mta = [ "mta" mta "in" ] global-id mta = word arrival-time = date-time md-or-mta = "MD" global-id / "MTA" mta Action-list = 1#action action = "Redirected" / "Expanded" / "Relayed" / "Rerouted" dr-user-info = dr-summary <CRLF> dr-recipients <CRLF> dr-content-return dr-content-return = "The Original Message is not available" / "The Original Message follows:" dr-summary = "This report relates to your message:" <CRLF> content-correlator <CRLF> <CRLF> "of" date-time <CRLF> <CRLF> dr-recipients = *(dr-recipient <CRLF> <CRLF>)Kille Standards Track [Page 122]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 dr-recipient = dr-recip-success / dr-recip-failure dr-recip-success = "Your message was successfully delivered to:" mailbox "at" date-time dr-recip-failure = "Your message was not delivered to:" mailbox <CRLF> "for the following reason:" *word report-point = [ "mta" mta-name "in" ] global-id content-correlator = *word mta-name = word dr-per-message-fields = / "X400-Conversion-Date" ":" date-time / "X400-Subject-Submision-Identifier" ":" mts-msg-id / "X400-Content-Identifier" ":" printablestring / "X400-Content-Type" ":" mts-content-type / "X400-Original-Encoded-Information-Types" ":" encoded-info / "X400-Originator-and-DL-Expansion-History" ":" mailbox ";" date-time ";" / "X400-Reporting-DL-Name" ":" mailbox / "X400-Content-Correlator" ":" content-correlator / "X400-Recipient-Info" ":" recipient-info / "X400-Subject-Intermediate-Trace-Information" ":" x400-trace / dr-extensions dr-per-recipient-fields = / "X400-Redirect-Recipient" ":" "x400" ";" std-or / "X400-Mapped-Redirect-Recipient" ":" "rfc822" ";" mailbox / "X400-Converted-EITs" ":" encoded-info ";" / "X400-Delivery-Time" ":" date-time / "X400-Type-of-MTS-User" ":" labelled-integer / "X400-Last-Trace" ":" [ encoded-info ] date-time / "X400-Supplementary-Info" ":" <"> printablestring <"> ";" / "X400-Redirection-History" ":" redirect-history-item / "X400-Physical-Forwarding-Address" ":" mailbox / "X400-Originally-Specified-Recipient-Number" ":" integer / dr-extensionsKille Standards Track [Page 123]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 dr-extensions = "X400-Discarded-DR-Extensions" ":" 1# (object-identifier / labelled-integer) dr-diagnostic = "Reason" labelled-integer-2 [ ";" "Diagnostic" labelled-integer-2 ] mts-field = "X400-MTS-Identifier" ":" mts-msg-id / "X400-Originator" ":" mailbox / "X400-Recipients" ":" 1#mailbox / "Original-Encoded-Information-Types" ":" encoded-info / "X400-Content-Type" ":" mts-content-type / "X400-Content-Identifier" ":" printablestring / "Priority" ":" priority / "Originator-Return-Address" ":" 1#mailbox / "DL-Expansion-History" ":" mailbox ";" date-time ";" / "Conversion" ":" prohibition / "Conversion-With-Loss" ":" prohibition / "Delivery-Date" ":" date-time / "Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions" ":" 1#( object-identifier / labelled-integer ) prohibition = "Prohibited" / "Allowed" mts-msg-id = "[" global-id ";" *text "]" mts-content-type = "P2" / labelled-integer / object-identifier priority = "normal" / "non-urgent" / "urgent" ipn-body-format = ipn-description <CRLF> [ ipn-extra-information <CRLF> ] [ ipn-content-return ] ipn-description = ipn-receipt / ipn-non-receipt ipn-receipt = "Your message to:" preferred-recipient <CRLF> "was received at" receipt-time <CRLF> <CRLF> "This notification was generated" acknowledgement-mode <CRLF> "The following extra information was given:" <CRLF> ipn-suppl <CRLF> ipn-non-receipt = "Your message to:" preferred-recipient <CRLF> ipn-reasonKille Standards Track [Page 124]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 ipn-reason = ipn-discarded / ipn-auto-forwarded ipn-discarded = "was discarded for the following reason:" discard-reason <CRLF> ipn-auto-forwarded = "was automatically forwarded." <CRLF> [ "The following comment was made:" auto-comment ] ipn-extra-information = "The following information types were converted:" encoded-info ipn-content-return = "The Original Message is not available" / "The Original Message follows:" preferred-recipient = mailbox receipt-time = date-time auto-comment = printablestring ipn-suppl = printablestring discard-reason = "Expired" / "Obsoleted" / "User Subscription Terminated" / "IPM Deleted" acknowledgement-mode = "Manually" / "Automatically" ipms-field = "Supersedes" ":" 1*msg-id / "Expires" ":" date-time / "Reply-By" ":" date-time / "Importance" ":" importance / "Sensitivity" ":" sensitivity / "Autoforwarded" ":" boolean / "Incomplete-Copy" ":" / "Content-Language" ":" 1#language / "Message-Type" ":" message-type / "Discarded-X400-IPMS-Extensions" ":" 1#object-identifier / "Autosubmitted" ":" autosubmitted importance = "low" / "normal" / "high" sensitivity = "Personal" / "Private" / "Company-Confidential" language = 2*ALPHA [ "(" language-description ")" ]Kille Standards Track [Page 125]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 language-description = printable-string message-type = "Delivery Report" / "InterPersonal Notification" / "Multiple Part" autosubmitted = "not-auto-submitted" / "auto-generated" / "auto-replied" / "auto-forwarded" redirect-comment = redirect-first *( redirect-subsequent ) redirect-first = "Originally To:" mailbox "Redirected on" date-time "To:" redirection-reason redirect-subsequent = mailbox "Redirected Again on" date-time "To:" redirection-reason redirection-history-item = "intended recipient" mailbox "redirected to" redirection-reason "on" date-time redirection-reason = "Recipient Assigned Alternate Recipient" / "Originator Requested Alternate Recipient" / "Recipient MD Assigned Alternate Recipient" / "Directory Look Up" / "Alias" subject-line = "Delivery-Report" "(" status ")" [ "for" destination ] status = "success" / "failure" / "success and failures" destination = mailbox / "MTA" word extended-heading = "Prevent-NonDelivery-Report" ":" / "Generate-Delivery-Report" ":" / "Alternate-Recipient" ":" prohibition / "Disclose-Recipients" ":" prohibition / "X400-Content-Return" ":" prohibitionKille Standards Track [Page 126]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix F - Text format for MCGAM distribution1. Text Formats This appendix defines text formats for exchange of four types of mapping. 1. Domain Name Space -> OR Address Space MCGAM 2. OR Address Space -> Domain Name Space MCGAM 3. Domain Name Space -> OR Address of preferred gateway 4. OR Address Space -> Domain Name of preferred gateway2. Mechanisms to register and to distribute MCGAMs There is a well known set of MCGAM tables. The global coordination of the mapping rules is a part of the DANTE MailFLOW Project. New mapping rules may be defined by the authority responsible for the relevant name space. The rules need to be registered with a national mapping registration authority, which in turn passes them on to the central mapping registration authority. All the collected mapping rules are merged together into the globally coordinated mapping tables by the MailFLOW Project Team. The tables are available from the national mapping registration authorities. To get a contact address of the mapping registration authority for the respective country or more information about the MailFLOW Project contact: SWITCH MailFLOW Project Team Limmatquai 138 8001 Zuerich Switzerland email: mailflow@mailflow.dante.net S=MailFLOW;O=MailFLOW;P=DANTE;A=mailnet;C=fi; fax: +41 1 268 15 68 tel: +41 1 268 15 20Kille Standards Track [Page 127]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 19983. Syntax Definitions An address syntax is defined, which is compatible with the syntax used for 822.domains. By representing the OR addresses as domains, all lookups can be mechanically implemented as domain -> domain mappings. This syntax defined is initially for use in table format, but the syntax is defined in a manner which makes it suitable to be adapted for use with the Domain Name Service. This syntax allows for a general representation of OR addresses, so that it can be used in other applications. Not all attributes are used in the table formats defined. To allow the mapping where a level of the hierarchy is omitted, the pseudo-value "@" (not a printable string character) is used to indicate omission of a level in the hierarchy. This is distinct from the form including the element with no value, although a correct X.400 implementation will interpret both in the same manner. This syntax is not intended to be handled by users. dmn-or-address = dmn-part *( "." dmn-part ) mn-part = dmn-attribute "$" value dmn-attribute = standard-type / "~" dmn-printablestring value = dmn-printablestring / "@" dmn-printablestring = = *( dmn-char / dmn-pair ) dmn-char = <"{", "}", "*", and any ps-char except "."> dmn-pair = "\." An example usage: ~ROLE$Big\.Chief.ADMD$ATT.C$US PRMD$DEC.ADMD$@.C$US The first example illustrates quoting of a "." and a domain define attribute (ROLE). The second example illustrates omission of the ADMD level. There shall be a strict ordering of all components in this table, with the most significant components on the RHS. This allows the encoding to be treated as a domain. Various further restrictions are placed on the usage of dmn-or- address in the address space mapping tables. a. Only C, ADMD, PRMD, O, and up to four OUs may be used.Kille Standards Track [Page 128]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 b. No components shall be omitted from this hierarchy, although the hierarchy may terminate at any level. If the mapping is to an omitted component, the "@" syntax is used.4. Table Lookups When determining a match, there are aspects which apply to all lookups. Matches are always case independent. The key for all three tables is a domain. The longest possible match shall be obtained. Suppose the table has two entries with the following keys: K.L J.K.L Domain "A.B.C" will not return any matches. Domain "I.J.K.L" will match the entry "J.K.L:.5. Domain -> OR Address MCGAM format The BNF is: domain-syntax "#" dmn-or-address "#" EBNF.domain-syntax is defined inSection 4.2. Note that the trailing "#" is used for clarity, as the dmn-or-address syntax might lead to values with trailing blanks. Lines starting with "#" are comments. For example: AC.UK#PRMD$UK\.AC.ADMD$GOLD 400.C$GB# XEROX.COM#O$Xerox.ADMD$ATT.C$US# GMD.DE#O$@.PRMD$GMD.ADMD$DBP.C$DE# A domain is looked up to determine the top levels of an OR Address. Components of the domain which are not matched are used to build the remainder of the OR address, as described inSection 4.3.4.6. OR Address -> Domain MCGAM format The syntax of this table is: dmn-or-address "#" domain-syntax "#" For example: # # Mapping table # PRMD$UK\.AC.ADMD$GOLD 400.C$GB#AC.UK#Kille Standards Track [Page 129]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 The OR Address is used to generate a domain key. It is important to order the components correctly, and to fill in missing components in the hierarchy. Use of this mapping is described inSection 4.3.2.7. Domain -> OR Address of Preferred Gateway table This uses the same format as the domain -> OR address MCGAM table. In this case, the restriction to only use C/ADMD/PRMD/O/OU does not apply. Use of this mapping is described inSection 4.3.4. A domain cannot appear in this table and in the domain to OR Address table.8. OR Addresss -> domain of Preferred Gateway table This uses the same format as the OR Address -> domain MCGAM table. Use of this mapping is described inSection 4.3.5. An OR Address cannot appear in this table and in the OR Address to domain table.Kille Standards Track [Page 130]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix G - Conformance This appendix defines a number of options, which a conforming gateway shall specify. Conformance to this specification shall not be claimed if any of the mandatory features are not implemented. A specification of conformance may list the service elements of Chapter 2, in order to be clear that full conformance is provied. In particular: - Formats for all fields shall be followed. - The gateway shall enable MCGAMs to be used. - Formats for subject lines, delivery reports and IPNs shall be followed. A system which followed the syntax, but translated text into a language other than english would be conformant. -RFC 1137 shall not be followed when mapping to SMTP. - All mappings of trace shall be implemented. - There shall be a mechanism to access all three global mappings. -RFC 2157 shall be followed for mapping body parts. - When it is specified that a MIME format message is generated,RFC 2045 shall be followed. A gateway shall specify: - Which Interent Message Transport (822-MTS) protocols are supported. If SMTP is supported, Appendex A of MIXER shall be used. - Which X.400 versions are supported (84, 88, 92). - Which mechanisms (table, X.500, DNS) are supported to access MCGAMs. - The mechanism or mechanisms by which the global mapping information is accessed. The following are optional parts of this specification. A conforming implementation shall specify which of these it supports. - Support for the extension mappings ofAppendix C.Kille Standards Track [Page 131]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 - Support for returning illegal format content in a delivery report - Which address interpretation heuristics are supported (4.3.4.1) - IfRFC 987 generated message ids are handled in a backwards compatible manner (4.7.3.6)Kille Standards Track [Page 132]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix H - Change History:RFC 987, 1026, 1138, 1148RFC 987 was the original document, and contained the key elements of this specification. It was specific to X.400(1984).RFC 1026 specified a small number of necessary changes toRFC 987.RFC 1138 was based on theRFC 987 work. It contained an editorial error, and was reissued a few months later asRFC 1148.RFC 1148 will be referred to here, as it is the document which is widely referred to elsewhere. The major goal ofRFC 1148 was to upgradeRFC987 to X.400(1988). It did this, but did not obsoleteRFC 987, which was recommended for use with X.400(1984). This appendix summarises the changes made in going fromRFC 987 toRFC 1148.RFC 1148 noted the following about its upgrade fromRFC 987: Unnecessary change is usually a bad idea. Changes on theRFC 822 side are avoided as far as possible, so thatRFC 822 users do not see arbitrary differences between systems conforming to this specification, and those followingRFC 987. Changes on the X.400 side are minimised, but are more acceptable, due to the mapping onto a new set of services and protocols.1. Introduction The model has shifted from a protocol based mapping to a service based mapping. This has increased the generality of the specification, and improved the model. This change affects the entire document. A restriction on scope has been added.2. Service Elements - The new service elements of X.400 are dealt with. - A clear distinction is made between origination and reception3. Basic Mappings - Add teletex support - Add object identifier support - Add labelled integer support - Make PrintableString <-> ASCII mapping reversibleKille Standards Track [Page 133]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 - The printable string mapping is aligned to the NBS mapping derived fromRFC 987.4. Addressing - Support for new addressing attributes - The message ID mapping is changed to not be table driven5. Detailed Mappings - Define extended IPM Header, and use instead of second body part forRFC 822 extensions - Realignment of element names - New syntax for reports, simplifying the header and introducing a mandatory body format (theRFC 987 header format was unusable) - Drop complex autoforwarded mapping - Add full mapping for IP Notifications, defining a body format - Adopt an MTS Identifier syntax in line with the OR Address syntax - A new format for X400 Trace representation on theRFC 822 side6. Appendices - Move Appendix on restricted 822 mappings to a separate RFC - Delete Phonenet and SMTP AppendixesKille Standards Track [Page 134]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix I - Change History:RFC 1148 toRFC 13271. General - The scope of the document was changed to cover X.400(1984), and so obsoleteRFC 987. - Changes were made to allow usage to connectRFC 822 networks using X.400 - Text was tightened to be clear about optional and mandatory aspects - A good deal of clarification - A number of minor EBNF errors - Better examples are given - Further X.400 upper bounds are handled correctly2. Basic Mappings - The encoding of object identifier is changed slightly3. Addressing - A global mapping of domain to preferred gateway is introduced. - An overflow mechanism is defined forRFC 822 addresses of greater than 128 bytes - Changes were made to improve compatibility with the PDAM on writing OR Addresses. + The PD and Terminal Type keywords were aligned to the PDAM. It is believed that minimal use has been made of theRFC 1148 keywords. + P and A are allowed as alternate keys for PRMD and ADMD + Where keywords are different, the PDAM keywords are alternatives on input. This is mandatory.4. Detailed Mappings - The format of the Subject: lines is defined.Kille Standards Track [Page 135]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 - Illegal use (repetition) of the heading EXTENSION is corrected, and a new object identifier assigned. - The Delivery Report format is extensively revised in light of operational experience. - The handling of redirects is significantly changed, as the previous mechanism did not work.5. Appendices - An SMTP appendix is added, allowing optional use of the VRFY command to improve probe information. - Handling of JNT Mail Acknowledge-To is changed slightly. - A DDA JNT-MAIL is allowed on input. - The format definitions ofAppendix F are explained further, and a third table definition added. - An appendix on use with X.400(1984) is added. - Optional extensions are defined to giveRFC 822 access to further X.400 facilities. - An appendix on conformance is added.Kille Standards Track [Page 136]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix J - Change History:RFC 1327 to this Document1. General This update is primarily for stability, and to fold in compatibility for MIME and to add support for the new NOTARY delivery status notifications. Other general changes: - Various editorial updates - Minor EBNF errors - Reference to mapping table support by DNS and X.500. - Alignment to X.400(92) - Assignment of a new object identifier - Removal of specification relating to body mapping, which is now defined inRFC 2157.2. Service Elements - Support of Auto-Submitted service3. Basic Mappings - Comments shall not be used in new headers, to remove parsing ambiguity -RFC 1522 encoding may be used as an alternative to X.408 downgrade, where appropriate. - Correct handling ofRFC 822 four year dates.4. Addressing - Replaced the mandatory global address mapping with MCGAMs. - Add codes and add a heuristic to align to the standard X.400 form of writing OR Addresses. - Improved text on ordering heuristic - Leading "/" interpretation addedKille Standards Track [Page 137]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 - All bar one of the address mapping heuristics made mandatory. - Interpretation of domain defined attribute "RFC-822" made mandatory in all cases - Make report request comments optional5. Detailed Mappings - Comments no longer maps to separate body part - Allow Languages to be multi-valued - Change Content-Identifier to X400-Content-Identifier, in order to avoid confusion with MIME. - Reverse mapping of MIXER defined fields made mandatory - "Expiry-Date:" changed to "Expires:". - "Obsoletes:" changed to "Supersedes:". - Define correct handling when "Resent-Date:" is present.6. Appendices - Change "Content-Return" to "X400-Content-Return" inAppendixC. - Relaxation of restrictions on mapping 3 inAppendix F. - Add linkage to HARPOON inAppendix B. -RFC 2157 added to the conformance statement ofAppendixG. - AddedAppendix L, with ASN. Summary.Kille Standards Track [Page 138]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Appendix L - ASN.1 Summary MIXER Definitions { iso org(3) dod(6) internet(1) mail(7) mixer(1) mixer-core(3) definitions(1) } DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN -- exports everything IMPORTS EXTENSION FROM MTSAbstractService {join-iso-ccit mhs-motis(6) mts(3) modules(0) mts-abstract-service(1) } HEADING-EXTENSION FROM IPMSAbstractService {join-iso-ccit mhs-motis(6) ipms(1) modules(0) abstract-service(3) }rfc-822-field HEADING-EXTENSION VALUE RFC822FieldList ::= id-rfc-822-field-list RFC822FieldList ::= SEQUENCE OF RFC822Field RFC822Field ::= IA5String dsn-header-list EXTENSION RFC822FieldList ::= id-dsn-header-list dsn-field-list EXTENSION RFC822FieldList ::= id-dsn-field-list internet ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER { iso org(3) dod(6) 1 } -- fromRFC1155 mail OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 7 } -- IANA assignedKille Standards Track [Page 139]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 mixer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mail mixer(1) } -- inherited fromRFC1495 mixer-core OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mixer core(3) } id-rfc-822-field-list OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 2} id-dsn-header-list OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 3} id-dsn-field-list OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 4} eit-mixer OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mixer-core 5} -- the MIXER pseudo-EIT END -- MIXER ASN.1Kille Standards Track [Page 140]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS Security issues are not discussed in this memo.AUTHOR'S ADDRESS Steve Kille Isode Ltd The Dome The Square Richmond TW9 1DT England Phone: +44-181-332-9091 Internet EMail: S.Kille@ISODE.COM X.400 Email: I=S; S=Kille; P=Isode; A=Mailnet; C=FI; UFN: S.Kille, Isode, GBReferences 1. CCITT , "Recommendations X.400", Message Handling Systems: System Model - Service Elements, October 1984. 2. Allocchio, C., "MaXIM11 - Mapping between X.400 / Internet Mail and Mail-11 mail",RFC 2162, January 1998. 3. Allocchio, C., "Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM)",RFC 2163, January 1998. 4. Alvestrand, H., Kille, S., Miles, R., Rose, M., and S. Thompson, "Mapping between X.400 andRFC-822 Message Bodies",RFC 1495, August 1993. 5. Alvestrand, H., Romaguera, J., and K. Jordan, "Rules for Downgrading Messages for X.400(88) to X.400(84) When MIME Content-Types are Present in the Messages (Harpoon)",RFC1496, August 1993. 6. Alvestrand, H., and S. Thompson, "Equivalences between X.400 andRFC-822 Message Bodies",RFC 1494, August 1993. 7. Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages",RFC 1766, March 1995.Kille Standards Track [Page 141]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 8. Alvestrand, H., "Mapping between X.400 andRFC-822/MIME Message Bodies",RFC 2157, January 1998. 9. Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",RFC 2045, November 1996. 10. Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support", STD 3,RFC 1123, October 1989. 11. CCITT/ISO, "CCITT Recommendations X.420/ ISO/IEC 10021-7," Message Handling Systems: Interpersonal Messaging System, Dec 1988. 12. CCITT/ISO, "CCITT Recommendations X.411/ ISO/IEC 10021-4," Message Handling Systems: Message Transfer System: Abstract Service Definition and Procedures, Dec 1988. 13. CCITT/ISO, "CCITT Recommendations X.400/ ISO/IEC 10021-1," Message Handling: System and Service Overview , Dec 1988. 14. CCITT/ISO, "Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)," CCITT Recommendation X.208 / ISO/IEC 8824, Dec 1988. 15. CCITT/ISO, "CCITT Recommendations X.400/ ISO/IEC 10021-1," Message Handling: System and Service Overview , Dec 1992. 16. Crocker, D., "Standard of the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11,RFC 822, August 1982. 17. Kille, S., "Mapping Between X.400 andRFC 822", UK Academic Community Report (MG.19) /RFC 987, June 1986. 18. Kille, S., "Addendum toRFC 987", UK Academic Community Report (MG.23) /RFC 1026, August 1987. 19. Kille, S., "Mapping Between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 andRFC822",RFC 1138, October 1989. 20. Kille, S., "Mapping Between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 andRFC822",RFC 1148, March 1990. 21. Kille, S., "Mapping Between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 andRFC822",RFC 1327, May 1992. 22. Kille, S., "X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading",RFC 1328, May 1992.Kille Standards Track [Page 142]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998 23. Kille, S., "A String Encoding of Presentation Address",RFC1278, November 1992. 24. Kille, S., "A String Representation of Distinguished Name",RFC 1485, January 1992. 25. Kille, S., "Using the OSI Directory to achieve User Friendly Naming",RFC 1484, January 1992. 26. Kille, S., "Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to support MIXER address mapping",RFC 2164, January 1998. 27. Koorland, N., "Message Attachmment Work Group (MAWG): MAWG Feasibility Project Guide," EMA Report, Version 1.5, Nov 1995. 28. Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications",RFC 1894, January 1996. 29. Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extensions for Delivery Status Notifications",RFC 1891, Januaty 1996. 30. Postel, J., "SIMPLE MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL", STD 10,RFC 821, August 1982.Kille Standards Track [Page 143]
RFC 2156 MIXER January 1998Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). 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 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.Kille Standards Track [Page 144]
[8]ページ先頭