IETF 48: Message Track WG Meeting Notes
Gregory Neil Shapiro <[email protected]> Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.msgtrk |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Monday, July 31, 2000
13:00 Message Tracking
Review current status
- Want to finish within one or two more IETF meetings
- Current document includes updates requested in Adelaide
Model Document
- Greg and Randy's comments in the mailing list will be addressed
in a new, last-call draft
Message Tracking Report Format
- MIME message/tracking-status type
- Steal from DSNs where-ever possible
- Don't appear to need additional Action: values
- How to handle referrals/rejections of query
- In MIME report or in MTQP response
- Add field "Remote-Tracking-Server:"?
- Make it optional
- Aversion to storing remote tracking server in tracking database
- Therefore MTQP needs to handle requests for all possible
resolutions of a Remote-MTA hostname.
Message Tracking SMTP Extensions
- TRACK EHLO response
- Needed to introduce a new truly unique global message identifier
- Should be ok
- MAIL command MTRK= parameter specifies ID and possibly a timeout
- Change to per-recipient tracking instead of per-message?
- Match DSN behavior, move MTRK to RCPT instead of MAIL
- Need to look at HMAC (MD5 alone of a concat isn't safe, ways to
get back the secret).
- Tag method used.
- Chris volunteers to help with language.
- Put authenticator information in this document instead of
protocol
- Advertise the TTL for tracking information on system?
- Probably not the correct place since MTQP, not SMTP manages
this
Message Tracking Query Protocol
- Move from part of SMTP to a separate protocol
- Pros:
- DoS attacks
- Can administer server separately
- Can do referrals to an MTQP-only sever
- Offloads work from SMTP server
- No 1-1 match between MTA and MTQP server
- Could support tracking beyond foreign MTA gateways
- Parallel w/ POP & IMAP for access
- Cons:
- Another protocol
- Another port
- Admin two servers instead of one
- Need to keep MTQP server in sync with MTAs
- IANA considerations
- Keep as separate protocol (hum of consensus)
- Steve will confirm on list
- Commands:
- Simple VERB PARAM ... CRLF
- Verbs are case insensitive
- Verbs defined are:
- TRACK
- NOOP
- QUIT
- Add STARTTLS as optional (unanimous hum of consensus)
- Positive Responses
- Current
- Single line: +OK status info CRLF
- Multi line: +OK+ status info CRLF
- dot stuffed (simpler)
- +OK+ status {count} CRLF
- handles complex responses
- Need both dot-stuff and count?
- Crowd appears to feel dot-stuffing is fine
- Negative responses
- Current
- -TEMP reason CRLF: temporary failure
- -ERR reason CRLF: permanent failure
- -BAD reason CRLF: protocol error
- Desire for hierarchical error codes
- Machine readable and extensible
- Change to form: "-TEMP" *[ / "..."]
- ... is a extensible token
- Make clear distinction between -BAD and -ERR
- Startup with a positive reply and optional list of
capabilities/extensions.
- STARTTLS will be the first extension
- Have MTQP be listed in greeting (+OK+/MTQP)
- Need an immediate referral mechanism
- Tony to produce syntax for the next document revision
- "-NO+<CRLF>
mtqp://tracking.server.fqdn/<CRLF>" (??)
- NOOP command
- NOOP <CRLF>
- QUIT command
- QUIT *ws <CRLF>
- Crowd requests removal of *ws
- TRACK command
- ABNF: "TRACK" 1*WS tracking-id 1*WS auth-cookie *WS CRLF
- Allow arbitrary WS?
- If keep, need to show in example
- Drop trailing *WS usage.
- Chris volunteers to help with Security Considerations section
Last time
- Tracking at a firewall
- Unique message identifier
- Authentication review
- Chris wrote, will help Eric with more work to be done
- What happens if next step doesn't support tracking?
- DoS attacks by tracking request saturations
- Other security issues
Summarize action items
- Combine report format and tracking protocol into one document
- But if MIME, need to keep as three documents
- Will keep separate
- Tony -01 draft
- Eric -00 drafts
- Deadline: August 30