aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/RFC/rfc1123.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorRob Funk <rfunk@funknet.net>2004-06-08 03:59:01 +0000
committerRob Funk <rfunk@funknet.net>2004-06-08 03:59:01 +0000
commitd78b61e3efaea197a6e5b2b72bf2981a9ed69461 (patch)
tree1704e13ce5d767d59868a2d5e834cb2e988ed90f /RFC/rfc1123.txt
parentd9e84e176fe538e110d9612f9832d69846e8d3e7 (diff)
downloadfetchmail-d78b61e3efaea197a6e5b2b72bf2981a9ed69461.tar.gz
fetchmail-d78b61e3efaea197a6e5b2b72bf2981a9ed69461.tar.bz2
fetchmail-d78b61e3efaea197a6e5b2b72bf2981a9ed69461.zip
Add files from ESR's dev directory that weren't under version control
svn path=/trunk/; revision=3881
Diffstat (limited to 'RFC/rfc1123.txt')
-rw-r--r--RFC/rfc1123.txt5782
1 files changed, 5782 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/RFC/rfc1123.txt b/RFC/rfc1123.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..51cdf83c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/RFC/rfc1123.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,5782 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group Internet Engineering Task Force
+Request for Comments: 1123 R. Braden, Editor
+ October 1989
+
+
+ Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This RFC is an official specification for the Internet community. It
+ incorporates by reference, amends, corrects, and supplements the
+ primary protocol standards documents relating to hosts. Distribution
+ of this document is unlimited.
+
+Summary
+
+ This RFC is one of a pair that defines and discusses the requirements
+ for Internet host software. This RFC covers the application and
+ support protocols; its companion RFC-1122 covers the communication
+ protocol layers: link layer, IP layer, and transport layer.
+
+
+
+ Table of Contents
+
+
+
+
+ 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 5
+ 1.1 The Internet Architecture .............................. 6
+ 1.2 General Considerations ................................. 6
+ 1.2.1 Continuing Internet Evolution ..................... 6
+ 1.2.2 Robustness Principle .............................. 7
+ 1.2.3 Error Logging ..................................... 8
+ 1.2.4 Configuration ..................................... 8
+ 1.3 Reading this Document .................................. 10
+ 1.3.1 Organization ...................................... 10
+ 1.3.2 Requirements ...................................... 10
+ 1.3.3 Terminology ....................................... 11
+ 1.4 Acknowledgments ........................................ 12
+
+ 2. GENERAL ISSUES ............................................. 13
+ 2.1 Host Names and Numbers ................................. 13
+ 2.2 Using Domain Name Service .............................. 13
+ 2.3 Applications on Multihomed hosts ....................... 14
+ 2.4 Type-of-Service ........................................ 14
+ 2.5 GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ............... 15
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 1]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ 3. REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET PROTOCOL ............................ 16
+ 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 16
+ 3.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH .................................. 16
+ 3.2.1 Option Negotiation ................................ 16
+ 3.2.2 Telnet Go-Ahead Function .......................... 16
+ 3.2.3 Control Functions ................................. 17
+ 3.2.4 Telnet "Synch" Signal ............................. 18
+ 3.2.5 NVT Printer and Keyboard .......................... 19
+ 3.2.6 Telnet Command Structure .......................... 20
+ 3.2.7 Telnet Binary Option .............................. 20
+ 3.2.8 Telnet Terminal-Type Option ....................... 20
+ 3.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ........................................ 21
+ 3.3.1 Telnet End-of-Line Convention ..................... 21
+ 3.3.2 Data Entry Terminals .............................. 23
+ 3.3.3 Option Requirements ............................... 24
+ 3.3.4 Option Initiation ................................. 24
+ 3.3.5 Telnet Linemode Option ............................ 25
+ 3.4 TELNET/USER INTERFACE .................................. 25
+ 3.4.1 Character Set Transparency ........................ 25
+ 3.4.2 Telnet Commands ................................... 26
+ 3.4.3 TCP Connection Errors ............................. 26
+ 3.4.4 Non-Default Telnet Contact Port ................... 26
+ 3.4.5 Flushing Output ................................... 26
+ 3.5. TELNET REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ........................... 27
+
+ 4. FILE TRANSFER .............................................. 29
+ 4.1 FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL -- FTP .......................... 29
+ 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 29
+ 4.1.2. PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................ 29
+ 4.1.2.1 LOCAL Type ................................... 29
+ 4.1.2.2 Telnet Format Control ........................ 30
+ 4.1.2.3 Page Structure ............................... 30
+ 4.1.2.4 Data Structure Transformations ............... 30
+ 4.1.2.5 Data Connection Management ................... 31
+ 4.1.2.6 PASV Command ................................. 31
+ 4.1.2.7 LIST and NLST Commands ....................... 31
+ 4.1.2.8 SITE Command ................................. 32
+ 4.1.2.9 STOU Command ................................. 32
+ 4.1.2.10 Telnet End-of-line Code ..................... 32
+ 4.1.2.11 FTP Replies ................................. 33
+ 4.1.2.12 Connections ................................. 34
+ 4.1.2.13 Minimum Implementation; RFC-959 Section ..... 34
+ 4.1.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ................................... 35
+ 4.1.3.1 Non-standard Command Verbs ................... 35
+ 4.1.3.2 Idle Timeout ................................. 36
+ 4.1.3.3 Concurrency of Data and Control .............. 36
+ 4.1.3.4 FTP Restart Mechanism ........................ 36
+ 4.1.4 FTP/USER INTERFACE ................................ 39
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 2]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ 4.1.4.1 Pathname Specification ....................... 39
+ 4.1.4.2 "QUOTE" Command .............................. 40
+ 4.1.4.3 Displaying Replies to User ................... 40
+ 4.1.4.4 Maintaining Synchronization .................. 40
+ 4.1.5 FTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ......................... 41
+ 4.2 TRIVIAL FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL -- TFTP ................. 44
+ 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 44
+ 4.2.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................. 44
+ 4.2.2.1 Transfer Modes ............................... 44
+ 4.2.2.2 UDP Header ................................... 44
+ 4.2.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ................................... 44
+ 4.2.3.1 Sorcerer's Apprentice Syndrome ............... 44
+ 4.2.3.2 Timeout Algorithms ........................... 46
+ 4.2.3.3 Extensions ................................... 46
+ 4.2.3.4 Access Control ............................... 46
+ 4.2.3.5 Broadcast Request ............................ 46
+ 4.2.4 TFTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ......................... 47
+
+ 5. ELECTRONIC MAIL -- SMTP and RFC-822 ........................ 48
+ 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 48
+ 5.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH .................................. 48
+ 5.2.1 The SMTP Model .................................... 48
+ 5.2.2 Canonicalization .................................. 49
+ 5.2.3 VRFY and EXPN Commands ............................ 50
+ 5.2.4 SEND, SOML, and SAML Commands ..................... 50
+ 5.2.5 HELO Command ...................................... 50
+ 5.2.6 Mail Relay ........................................ 51
+ 5.2.7 RCPT Command ...................................... 52
+ 5.2.8 DATA Command ...................................... 53
+ 5.2.9 Command Syntax .................................... 54
+ 5.2.10 SMTP Replies ..................................... 54
+ 5.2.11 Transparency ..................................... 55
+ 5.2.12 WKS Use in MX Processing ......................... 55
+ 5.2.13 RFC-822 Message Specification .................... 55
+ 5.2.14 RFC-822 Date and Time Specification .............. 55
+ 5.2.15 RFC-822 Syntax Change ............................ 56
+ 5.2.16 RFC-822 Local-part .............................. 56
+ 5.2.17 Domain Literals .................................. 57
+ 5.2.18 Common Address Formatting Errors ................. 58
+ 5.2.19 Explicit Source Routes ........................... 58
+ 5.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ........................................ 59
+ 5.3.1 SMTP Queueing Strategies .......................... 59
+ 5.3.1.1 Sending Strategy .............................. 59
+ 5.3.1.2 Receiving strategy ........................... 61
+ 5.3.2 Timeouts in SMTP .................................. 61
+ 5.3.3 Reliable Mail Receipt ............................. 63
+ 5.3.4 Reliable Mail Transmission ........................ 63
+ 5.3.5 Domain Name Support ............................... 65
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 3]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ 5.3.6 Mailing Lists and Aliases ......................... 65
+ 5.3.7 Mail Gatewaying ................................... 66
+ 5.3.8 Maximum Message Size .............................. 68
+ 5.4 SMTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY .............................. 69
+
+ 6. SUPPORT SERVICES ............................................ 72
+ 6.1 DOMAIN NAME TRANSLATION ................................. 72
+ 6.1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 72
+ 6.1.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................. 72
+ 6.1.2.1 Resource Records with Zero TTL ............... 73
+ 6.1.2.2 QCLASS Values ................................ 73
+ 6.1.2.3 Unused Fields ................................ 73
+ 6.1.2.4 Compression .................................. 73
+ 6.1.2.5 Misusing Configuration Info .................. 73
+ 6.1.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES ................................... 74
+ 6.1.3.1 Resolver Implementation ...................... 74
+ 6.1.3.2 Transport Protocols .......................... 75
+ 6.1.3.3 Efficient Resource Usage ..................... 77
+ 6.1.3.4 Multihomed Hosts ............................. 78
+ 6.1.3.5 Extensibility ................................ 79
+ 6.1.3.6 Status of RR Types ........................... 79
+ 6.1.3.7 Robustness ................................... 80
+ 6.1.3.8 Local Host Table ............................. 80
+ 6.1.4 DNS USER INTERFACE ................................ 81
+ 6.1.4.1 DNS Administration ........................... 81
+ 6.1.4.2 DNS User Interface ........................... 81
+ 6.1.4.3 Interface Abbreviation Facilities ............. 82
+ 6.1.5 DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ........... 84
+ 6.2 HOST INITIALIZATION .................................... 87
+ 6.2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 87
+ 6.2.2 REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 87
+ 6.2.2.1 Dynamic Configuration ........................ 87
+ 6.2.2.2 Loading Phase ................................ 89
+ 6.3 REMOTE MANAGEMENT ...................................... 90
+ 6.3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 90
+ 6.3.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH ............................. 90
+ 6.3.3 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ................... 92
+
+ 7. REFERENCES ................................................. 93
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 4]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+1. INTRODUCTION
+
+ This document is one of a pair that defines and discusses the
+ requirements for host system implementations of the Internet protocol
+ suite. This RFC covers the applications layer and support protocols.
+ Its companion RFC, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communications
+ Layers" [INTRO:1] covers the lower layer protocols: transport layer,
+ IP layer, and link layer.
+
+ These documents are intended to provide guidance for vendors,
+ implementors, and users of Internet communication software. They
+ represent the consensus of a large body of technical experience and
+ wisdom, contributed by members of the Internet research and vendor
+ communities.
+
+ This RFC enumerates standard protocols that a host connected to the
+ Internet must use, and it incorporates by reference the RFCs and
+ other documents describing the current specifications for these
+ protocols. It corrects errors in the referenced documents and adds
+ additional discussion and guidance for an implementor.
+
+ For each protocol, this document also contains an explicit set of
+ requirements, recommendations, and options. The reader must
+ understand that the list of requirements in this document is
+ incomplete by itself; the complete set of requirements for an
+ Internet host is primarily defined in the standard protocol
+ specification documents, with the corrections, amendments, and
+ supplements contained in this RFC.
+
+ A good-faith implementation of the protocols that was produced after
+ careful reading of the RFC's and with some interaction with the
+ Internet technical community, and that followed good communications
+ software engineering practices, should differ from the requirements
+ of this document in only minor ways. Thus, in many cases, the
+ "requirements" in this RFC are already stated or implied in the
+ standard protocol documents, so that their inclusion here is, in a
+ sense, redundant. However, they were included because some past
+ implementation has made the wrong choice, causing problems of
+ interoperability, performance, and/or robustness.
+
+ This document includes discussion and explanation of many of the
+ requirements and recommendations. A simple list of requirements
+ would be dangerous, because:
+
+ o Some required features are more important than others, and some
+ features are optional.
+
+ o There may be valid reasons why particular vendor products that
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 5]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ are designed for restricted contexts might choose to use
+ different specifications.
+
+ However, the specifications of this document must be followed to meet
+ the general goal of arbitrary host interoperation across the
+ diversity and complexity of the Internet system. Although most
+ current implementations fail to meet these requirements in various
+ ways, some minor and some major, this specification is the ideal
+ towards which we need to move.
+
+ These requirements are based on the current level of Internet
+ architecture. This document will be updated as required to provide
+ additional clarifications or to include additional information in
+ those areas in which specifications are still evolving.
+
+ This introductory section begins with general advice to host software
+ vendors, and then gives some guidance on reading the rest of the
+ document. Section 2 contains general requirements that may be
+ applicable to all application and support protocols. Sections 3, 4,
+ and 5 contain the requirements on protocols for the three major
+ applications: Telnet, file transfer, and electronic mail,
+ respectively. Section 6 covers the support applications: the domain
+ name system, system initialization, and management. Finally, all
+ references will be found in Section 7.
+
+ 1.1 The Internet Architecture
+
+ For a brief introduction to the Internet architecture from a host
+ viewpoint, see Section 1.1 of [INTRO:1]. That section also
+ contains recommended references for general background on the
+ Internet architecture.
+
+ 1.2 General Considerations
+
+ There are two important lessons that vendors of Internet host
+ software have learned and which a new vendor should consider
+ seriously.
+
+ 1.2.1 Continuing Internet Evolution
+
+ The enormous growth of the Internet has revealed problems of
+ management and scaling in a large datagram-based packet
+ communication system. These problems are being addressed, and
+ as a result there will be continuing evolution of the
+ specifications described in this document. These changes will
+ be carefully planned and controlled, since there is extensive
+ participation in this planning by the vendors and by the
+ organizations responsible for operations of the networks.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 6]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ Development, evolution, and revision are characteristic of
+ computer network protocols today, and this situation will
+ persist for some years. A vendor who develops computer
+ communication software for the Internet protocol suite (or any
+ other protocol suite!) and then fails to maintain and update
+ that software for changing specifications is going to leave a
+ trail of unhappy customers. The Internet is a large
+ communication network, and the users are in constant contact
+ through it. Experience has shown that knowledge of
+ deficiencies in vendor software propagates quickly through the
+ Internet technical community.
+
+ 1.2.2 Robustness Principle
+
+ At every layer of the protocols, there is a general rule whose
+ application can lead to enormous benefits in robustness and
+ interoperability:
+
+ "Be liberal in what you accept, and
+ conservative in what you send"
+
+ Software should be written to deal with every conceivable
+ error, no matter how unlikely; sooner or later a packet will
+ come in with that particular combination of errors and
+ attributes, and unless the software is prepared, chaos can
+ ensue. In general, it is best to assume that the network is
+ filled with malevolent entities that will send in packets
+ designed to have the worst possible effect. This assumption
+ will lead to suitable protective design, although the most
+ serious problems in the Internet have been caused by
+ unenvisaged mechanisms triggered by low-probability events;
+ mere human malice would never have taken so devious a course!
+
+ Adaptability to change must be designed into all levels of
+ Internet host software. As a simple example, consider a
+ protocol specification that contains an enumeration of values
+ for a particular header field -- e.g., a type field, a port
+ number, or an error code; this enumeration must be assumed to
+ be incomplete. Thus, if a protocol specification defines four
+ possible error codes, the software must not break when a fifth
+ code shows up. An undefined code might be logged (see below),
+ but it must not cause a failure.
+
+ The second part of the principle is almost as important:
+ software on other hosts may contain deficiencies that make it
+ unwise to exploit legal but obscure protocol features. It is
+ unwise to stray far from the obvious and simple, lest untoward
+ effects result elsewhere. A corollary of this is "watch out
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 7]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ for misbehaving hosts"; host software should be prepared, not
+ just to survive other misbehaving hosts, but also to cooperate
+ to limit the amount of disruption such hosts can cause to the
+ shared communication facility.
+
+ 1.2.3 Error Logging
+
+ The Internet includes a great variety of host and gateway
+ systems, each implementing many protocols and protocol layers,
+ and some of these contain bugs and mis-features in their
+ Internet protocol software. As a result of complexity,
+ diversity, and distribution of function, the diagnosis of user
+ problems is often very difficult.
+
+ Problem diagnosis will be aided if host implementations include
+ a carefully designed facility for logging erroneous or
+ "strange" protocol events. It is important to include as much
+ diagnostic information as possible when an error is logged. In
+ particular, it is often useful to record the header(s) of a
+ packet that caused an error. However, care must be taken to
+ ensure that error logging does not consume prohibitive amounts
+ of resources or otherwise interfere with the operation of the
+ host.
+
+ There is a tendency for abnormal but harmless protocol events
+ to overflow error logging files; this can be avoided by using a
+ "circular" log, or by enabling logging only while diagnosing a
+ known failure. It may be useful to filter and count duplicate
+ successive messages. One strategy that seems to work well is:
+ (1) always count abnormalities and make such counts accessible
+ through the management protocol (see Section 6.3); and (2)
+ allow the logging of a great variety of events to be
+ selectively enabled. For example, it might useful to be able
+ to "log everything" or to "log everything for host X".
+
+ Note that different managements may have differing policies
+ about the amount of error logging that they want normally
+ enabled in a host. Some will say, "if it doesn't hurt me, I
+ don't want to know about it", while others will want to take a
+ more watchful and aggressive attitude about detecting and
+ removing protocol abnormalities.
+
+ 1.2.4 Configuration
+
+ It would be ideal if a host implementation of the Internet
+ protocol suite could be entirely self-configuring. This would
+ allow the whole suite to be implemented in ROM or cast into
+ silicon, it would simplify diskless workstations, and it would
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 8]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ be an immense boon to harried LAN administrators as well as
+ system vendors. We have not reached this ideal; in fact, we
+ are not even close.
+
+ At many points in this document, you will find a requirement
+ that a parameter be a configurable option. There are several
+ different reasons behind such requirements. In a few cases,
+ there is current uncertainty or disagreement about the best
+ value, and it may be necessary to update the recommended value
+ in the future. In other cases, the value really depends on
+ external factors -- e.g., the size of the host and the
+ distribution of its communication load, or the speeds and
+ topology of nearby networks -- and self-tuning algorithms are
+ unavailable and may be insufficient. In some cases,
+ configurability is needed because of administrative
+ requirements.
+
+ Finally, some configuration options are required to communicate
+ with obsolete or incorrect implementations of the protocols,
+ distributed without sources, that unfortunately persist in many
+ parts of the Internet. To make correct systems coexist with
+ these faulty systems, administrators often have to "mis-
+ configure" the correct systems. This problem will correct
+ itself gradually as the faulty systems are retired, but it
+ cannot be ignored by vendors.
+
+ When we say that a parameter must be configurable, we do not
+ intend to require that its value be explicitly read from a
+ configuration file at every boot time. We recommend that
+ implementors set up a default for each parameter, so a
+ configuration file is only necessary to override those defaults
+ that are inappropriate in a particular installation. Thus, the
+ configurability requirement is an assurance that it will be
+ POSSIBLE to override the default when necessary, even in a
+ binary-only or ROM-based product.
+
+ This document requires a particular value for such defaults in
+ some cases. The choice of default is a sensitive issue when
+ the configuration item controls the accommodation to existing
+ faulty systems. If the Internet is to converge successfully to
+ complete interoperability, the default values built into
+ implementations must implement the official protocol, not
+ "mis-configurations" to accommodate faulty implementations.
+ Although marketing considerations have led some vendors to
+ choose mis-configuration defaults, we urge vendors to choose
+ defaults that will conform to the standard.
+
+ Finally, we note that a vendor needs to provide adequate
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 9]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ documentation on all configuration parameters, their limits and
+ effects.
+
+
+ 1.3 Reading this Document
+
+ 1.3.1 Organization
+
+ In general, each major section is organized into the following
+ subsections:
+
+ (1) Introduction
+
+ (2) Protocol Walk-Through -- considers the protocol
+ specification documents section-by-section, correcting
+ errors, stating requirements that may be ambiguous or
+ ill-defined, and providing further clarification or
+ explanation.
+
+ (3) Specific Issues -- discusses protocol design and
+ implementation issues that were not included in the walk-
+ through.
+
+ (4) Interfaces -- discusses the service interface to the next
+ higher layer.
+
+ (5) Summary -- contains a summary of the requirements of the
+ section.
+
+ Under many of the individual topics in this document, there is
+ parenthetical material labeled "DISCUSSION" or
+ "IMPLEMENTATION". This material is intended to give
+ clarification and explanation of the preceding requirements
+ text. It also includes some suggestions on possible future
+ directions or developments. The implementation material
+ contains suggested approaches that an implementor may want to
+ consider.
+
+ The summary sections are intended to be guides and indexes to
+ the text, but are necessarily cryptic and incomplete. The
+ summaries should never be used or referenced separately from
+ the complete RFC.
+
+ 1.3.2 Requirements
+
+ In this document, the words that are used to define the
+ significance of each particular requirement are capitalized.
+ These words are:
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 10]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ * "MUST"
+
+ This word or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the item
+ is an absolute requirement of the specification.
+
+ * "SHOULD"
+
+ This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
+ may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
+ ignore this item, but the full implications should be
+ understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing
+ a different course.
+
+ * "MAY"
+
+ This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item
+ is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the
+ item because a particular marketplace requires it or
+ because it enhances the product, for example; another
+ vendor may omit the same item.
+
+
+ An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one
+ or more of the MUST requirements for the protocols it
+ implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST and
+ all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be
+ "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST
+ requirements but not all the SHOULD requirements for its
+ protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant".
+
+ 1.3.3 Terminology
+
+ This document uses the following technical terms:
+
+ Segment
+ A segment is the unit of end-to-end transmission in the
+ TCP protocol. A segment consists of a TCP header followed
+ by application data. A segment is transmitted by
+ encapsulation in an IP datagram.
+
+ Message
+ This term is used by some application layer protocols
+ (particularly SMTP) for an application data unit.
+
+ Datagram
+ A [UDP] datagram is the unit of end-to-end transmission in
+ the UDP protocol.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 11]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 INTRODUCTION October 1989
+
+
+ Multihomed
+ A host is said to be multihomed if it has multiple IP
+ addresses to connected networks.
+
+
+
+ 1.4 Acknowledgments
+
+ This document incorporates contributions and comments from a large
+ group of Internet protocol experts, including representatives of
+ university and research labs, vendors, and government agencies.
+ It was assembled primarily by the Host Requirements Working Group
+ of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
+
+ The Editor would especially like to acknowledge the tireless
+ dedication of the following people, who attended many long
+ meetings and generated 3 million bytes of electronic mail over the
+ past 18 months in pursuit of this document: Philip Almquist, Dave
+ Borman (Cray Research), Noel Chiappa, Dave Crocker (DEC), Steve
+ Deering (Stanford), Mike Karels (Berkeley), Phil Karn (Bellcore),
+ John Lekashman (NASA), Charles Lynn (BBN), Keith McCloghrie (TWG),
+ Paul Mockapetris (ISI), Thomas Narten (Purdue), Craig Partridge
+ (BBN), Drew Perkins (CMU), and James Van Bokkelen (FTP Software).
+
+ In addition, the following people made major contributions to the
+ effort: Bill Barns (Mitre), Steve Bellovin (AT&T), Mike Brescia
+ (BBN), Ed Cain (DCA), Annette DeSchon (ISI), Martin Gross (DCA),
+ Phill Gross (NRI), Charles Hedrick (Rutgers), Van Jacobson (LBL),
+ John Klensin (MIT), Mark Lottor (SRI), Milo Medin (NASA), Bill
+ Melohn (Sun Microsystems), Greg Minshall (Kinetics), Jeff Mogul
+ (DEC), John Mullen (CMC), Jon Postel (ISI), John Romkey (Epilogue
+ Technology), and Mike StJohns (DCA). The following also made
+ significant contributions to particular areas: Eric Allman
+ (Berkeley), Rob Austein (MIT), Art Berggreen (ACC), Keith Bostic
+ (Berkeley), Vint Cerf (NRI), Wayne Hathaway (NASA), Matt Korn
+ (IBM), Erik Naggum (Naggum Software, Norway), Robert Ullmann
+ (Prime Computer), David Waitzman (BBN), Frank Wancho (USA), Arun
+ Welch (Ohio State), Bill Westfield (Cisco), and Rayan Zachariassen
+ (Toronto).
+
+ We are grateful to all, including any contributors who may have
+ been inadvertently omitted from this list.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 12]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 APPLICATIONS LAYER -- GENERAL October 1989
+
+
+2. GENERAL ISSUES
+
+ This section contains general requirements that may be applicable to
+ all application-layer protocols.
+
+ 2.1 Host Names and Numbers
+
+ The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
+ [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
+ restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
+ letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal
+ syntax.
+
+ Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters and
+ SHOULD handle host names of up to 255 characters.
+
+ Whenever a user inputs the identity of an Internet host, it SHOULD
+ be possible to enter either (1) a host domain name or (2) an IP
+ address in dotted-decimal ("#.#.#.#") form. The host SHOULD check
+ the string syntactically for a dotted-decimal number before
+ looking it up in the Domain Name System.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ This last requirement is not intended to specify the complete
+ syntactic form for entering a dotted-decimal host number;
+ that is considered to be a user-interface issue. For
+ example, a dotted-decimal number must be enclosed within
+ "[ ]" brackets for SMTP mail (see Section 5.2.17). This
+ notation could be made universal within a host system,
+ simplifying the syntactic checking for a dotted-decimal
+ number.
+
+ If a dotted-decimal number can be entered without such
+ identifying delimiters, then a full syntactic check must be
+ made, because a segment of a host domain name is now allowed
+ to begin with a digit and could legally be entirely numeric
+ (see Section 6.1.2.4). However, a valid host name can never
+ have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the
+ highest-level component label will be alphabetic.
+
+ 2.2 Using Domain Name Service
+
+ Host domain names MUST be translated to IP addresses as described
+ in Section 6.1.
+
+ Applications using domain name services MUST be able to cope with
+ soft error conditions. Applications MUST wait a reasonable
+ interval between successive retries due to a soft error, and MUST
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 13]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 APPLICATIONS LAYER -- GENERAL October 1989
+
+
+ allow for the possibility that network problems may deny service
+ for hours or even days.
+
+ An application SHOULD NOT rely on the ability to locate a WKS
+ record containing an accurate listing of all services at a
+ particular host address, since the WKS RR type is not often used
+ by Internet sites. To confirm that a service is present, simply
+ attempt to use it.
+
+ 2.3 Applications on Multihomed hosts
+
+ When the remote host is multihomed, the name-to-address
+ translation will return a list of alternative IP addresses. As
+ specified in Section 6.1.3.4, this list should be in order of
+ decreasing preference. Application protocol implementations
+ SHOULD be prepared to try multiple addresses from the list until
+ success is obtained. More specific requirements for SMTP are
+ given in Section 5.3.4.
+
+ When the local host is multihomed, a UDP-based request/response
+ application SHOULD send the response with an IP source address
+ that is the same as the specific destination address of the UDP
+ request datagram. The "specific destination address" is defined
+ in the "IP Addressing" section of the companion RFC [INTRO:1].
+
+ Similarly, a server application that opens multiple TCP
+ connections to the same client SHOULD use the same local IP
+ address for all.
+
+ 2.4 Type-of-Service
+
+ Applications MUST select appropriate TOS values when they invoke
+ transport layer services, and these values MUST be configurable.
+ Note that a TOS value contains 5 bits, of which only the most-
+ significant 3 bits are currently defined; the other two bits MUST
+ be zero.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ As gateway algorithms are developed to implement Type-of-
+ Service, the recommended values for various application
+ protocols may change. In addition, it is likely that
+ particular combinations of users and Internet paths will want
+ non-standard TOS values. For these reasons, the TOS values
+ must be configurable.
+
+ See the latest version of the "Assigned Numbers" RFC
+ [INTRO:5] for the recommended TOS values for the major
+ application protocols.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 14]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 APPLICATIONS LAYER -- GENERAL October 1989
+
+
+ 2.5 GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
+
+ | | | | |S| |
+ | | | | |H| |F
+ | | | | |O|M|o
+ | | |S| |U|U|o
+ | | |H| |L|S|t
+ | |M|O| |D|T|n
+ | |U|U|M| | |o
+ | |S|L|A|N|N|t
+ | |T|D|Y|O|O|t
+FEATURE |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
+-----------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+ | | | | | | |
+User interfaces: | | | | | | |
+ Allow host name to begin with digit |2.1 |x| | | | |
+ Host names of up to 635 characters |2.1 |x| | | | |
+ Host names of up to 255 characters |2.1 | |x| | | |
+ Support dotted-decimal host numbers |2.1 | |x| | | |
+ Check syntactically for dotted-dec first |2.1 | |x| | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Map domain names per Section 6.1 |2.2 |x| | | | |
+Cope with soft DNS errors |2.2 |x| | | | |
+ Reasonable interval between retries |2.2 |x| | | | |
+ Allow for long outages |2.2 |x| | | | |
+Expect WKS records to be available |2.2 | | | |x| |
+ | | | | | | |
+Try multiple addr's for remote multihomed host |2.3 | |x| | | |
+UDP reply src addr is specific dest of request |2.3 | |x| | | |
+Use same IP addr for related TCP connections |2.3 | |x| | | |
+Specify appropriate TOS values |2.4 |x| | | | |
+ TOS values configurable |2.4 |x| | | | |
+ Unused TOS bits zero |2.4 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 15]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+3. REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET PROTOCOL
+
+ 3.1 INTRODUCTION
+
+ Telnet is the standard Internet application protocol for remote
+ login. It provides the encoding rules to link a user's
+ keyboard/display on a client ("user") system with a command
+ interpreter on a remote server system. A subset of the Telnet
+ protocol is also incorporated within other application protocols,
+ e.g., FTP and SMTP.
+
+ Telnet uses a single TCP connection, and its normal data stream
+ ("Network Virtual Terminal" or "NVT" mode) is 7-bit ASCII with
+ escape sequences to embed control functions. Telnet also allows
+ the negotiation of many optional modes and functions.
+
+ The primary Telnet specification is to be found in RFC-854
+ [TELNET:1], while the options are defined in many other RFCs; see
+ Section 7 for references.
+
+ 3.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH
+
+ 3.2.1 Option Negotiation: RFC-854, pp. 2-3
+
+ Every Telnet implementation MUST include option negotiation and
+ subnegotiation machinery [TELNET:2].
+
+ A host MUST carefully follow the rules of RFC-854 to avoid
+ option-negotiation loops. A host MUST refuse (i.e, reply
+ WONT/DONT to a DO/WILL) an unsupported option. Option
+ negotiation SHOULD continue to function (even if all requests
+ are refused) throughout the lifetime of a Telnet connection.
+
+ If all option negotiations fail, a Telnet implementation MUST
+ default to, and support, an NVT.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Even though more sophisticated "terminals" and supporting
+ option negotiations are becoming the norm, all
+ implementations must be prepared to support an NVT for any
+ user-server communication.
+
+ 3.2.2 Telnet Go-Ahead Function: RFC-854, p. 5, and RFC-858
+
+ On a host that never sends the Telnet command Go Ahead (GA),
+ the Telnet Server MUST attempt to negotiate the Suppress Go
+ Ahead option (i.e., send "WILL Suppress Go Ahead"). A User or
+ Server Telnet MUST always accept negotiation of the Suppress Go
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 16]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ Ahead option.
+
+ When it is driving a full-duplex terminal for which GA has no
+ meaning, a User Telnet implementation MAY ignore GA commands.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Half-duplex ("locked-keyboard") line-at-a-time terminals
+ for which the Go-Ahead mechanism was designed have largely
+ disappeared from the scene. It turned out to be difficult
+ to implement sending the Go-Ahead signal in many operating
+ systems, even some systems that support native half-duplex
+ terminals. The difficulty is typically that the Telnet
+ server code does not have access to information about
+ whether the user process is blocked awaiting input from
+ the Telnet connection, i.e., it cannot reliably determine
+ when to send a GA command. Therefore, most Telnet Server
+ hosts do not send GA commands.
+
+ The effect of the rules in this section is to allow either
+ end of a Telnet connection to veto the use of GA commands.
+
+ There is a class of half-duplex terminals that is still
+ commercially important: "data entry terminals," which
+ interact in a full-screen manner. However, supporting
+ data entry terminals using the Telnet protocol does not
+ require the Go Ahead signal; see Section 3.3.2.
+
+ 3.2.3 Control Functions: RFC-854, pp. 7-8
+
+ The list of Telnet commands has been extended to include EOR
+ (End-of-Record), with code 239 [TELNET:9].
+
+ Both User and Server Telnets MAY support the control functions
+ EOR, EC, EL, and Break, and MUST support AO, AYT, DM, IP, NOP,
+ SB, and SE.
+
+ A host MUST be able to receive and ignore any Telnet control
+ functions that it does not support.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Note that a Server Telnet is required to support the
+ Telnet IP (Interrupt Process) function, even if the server
+ host has an equivalent in-stream function (e.g., Control-C
+ in many systems). The Telnet IP function may be stronger
+ than an in-stream interrupt command, because of the out-
+ of-band effect of TCP urgent data.
+
+ The EOR control function may be used to delimit the
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 17]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ stream. An important application is data entry terminal
+ support (see Section 3.3.2). There was concern that since
+ EOR had not been defined in RFC-854, a host that was not
+ prepared to correctly ignore unknown Telnet commands might
+ crash if it received an EOR. To protect such hosts, the
+ End-of-Record option [TELNET:9] was introduced; however, a
+ properly implemented Telnet program will not require this
+ protection.
+
+ 3.2.4 Telnet "Synch" Signal: RFC-854, pp. 8-10
+
+ When it receives "urgent" TCP data, a User or Server Telnet
+ MUST discard all data except Telnet commands until the DM (and
+ end of urgent) is reached.
+
+ When it sends Telnet IP (Interrupt Process), a User Telnet
+ SHOULD follow it by the Telnet "Synch" sequence, i.e., send as
+ TCP urgent data the sequence "IAC IP IAC DM". The TCP urgent
+ pointer points to the DM octet.
+
+ When it receives a Telnet IP command, a Server Telnet MAY send
+ a Telnet "Synch" sequence back to the user, to flush the output
+ stream. The choice ought to be consistent with the way the
+ server operating system behaves when a local user interrupts a
+ process.
+
+ When it receives a Telnet AO command, a Server Telnet MUST send
+ a Telnet "Synch" sequence back to the user, to flush the output
+ stream.
+
+ A User Telnet SHOULD have the capability of flushing output
+ when it sends a Telnet IP; see also Section 3.4.5.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ There are three possible ways for a User Telnet to flush
+ the stream of server output data:
+
+ (1) Send AO after IP.
+
+ This will cause the server host to send a "flush-
+ buffered-output" signal to its operating system.
+ However, the AO may not take effect locally, i.e.,
+ stop terminal output at the User Telnet end, until
+ the Server Telnet has received and processed the AO
+ and has sent back a "Synch".
+
+ (2) Send DO TIMING-MARK [TELNET:7] after IP, and discard
+ all output locally until a WILL/WONT TIMING-MARK is
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 18]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ received from the Server Telnet.
+
+ Since the DO TIMING-MARK will be processed after the
+ IP at the server, the reply to it should be in the
+ right place in the output data stream. However, the
+ TIMING-MARK will not send a "flush buffered output"
+ signal to the server operating system. Whether or
+ not this is needed is dependent upon the server
+ system.
+
+ (3) Do both.
+
+ The best method is not entirely clear, since it must
+ accommodate a number of existing server hosts that do not
+ follow the Telnet standards in various ways. The safest
+ approach is probably to provide a user-controllable option
+ to select (1), (2), or (3).
+
+ 3.2.5 NVT Printer and Keyboard: RFC-854, p. 11
+
+ In NVT mode, a Telnet SHOULD NOT send characters with the
+ high-order bit 1, and MUST NOT send it as a parity bit.
+ Implementations that pass the high-order bit to applications
+ SHOULD negotiate binary mode (see Section 3.2.6).
+
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Implementors should be aware that a strict reading of
+ RFC-854 allows a client or server expecting NVT ASCII to
+ ignore characters with the high-order bit set. In
+ general, binary mode is expected to be used for
+ transmission of an extended (beyond 7-bit) character set
+ with Telnet.
+
+ However, there exist applications that really need an 8-
+ bit NVT mode, which is currently not defined, and these
+ existing applications do set the high-order bit during
+ part or all of the life of a Telnet connection. Note that
+ binary mode is not the same as 8-bit NVT mode, since
+ binary mode turns off end-of-line processing. For this
+ reason, the requirements on the high-order bit are stated
+ as SHOULD, not MUST.
+
+ RFC-854 defines a minimal set of properties of a "network
+ virtual terminal" or NVT; this is not meant to preclude
+ additional features in a real terminal. A Telnet
+ connection is fully transparent to all 7-bit ASCII
+ characters, including arbitrary ASCII control characters.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 19]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ For example, a terminal might support full-screen commands
+ coded as ASCII escape sequences; a Telnet implementation
+ would pass these sequences as uninterpreted data. Thus,
+ an NVT should not be conceived as a terminal type of a
+ highly-restricted device.
+
+ 3.2.6 Telnet Command Structure: RFC-854, p. 13
+
+ Since options may appear at any point in the data stream, a
+ Telnet escape character (known as IAC, with the value 255) to
+ be sent as data MUST be doubled.
+
+ 3.2.7 Telnet Binary Option: RFC-856
+
+ When the Binary option has been successfully negotiated,
+ arbitrary 8-bit characters are allowed. However, the data
+ stream MUST still be scanned for IAC characters, any embedded
+ Telnet commands MUST be obeyed, and data bytes equal to IAC
+ MUST be doubled. Other character processing (e.g., replacing
+ CR by CR NUL or by CR LF) MUST NOT be done. In particular,
+ there is no end-of-line convention (see Section 3.3.1) in
+ binary mode.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The Binary option is normally negotiated in both
+ directions, to change the Telnet connection from NVT mode
+ to "binary mode".
+
+ The sequence IAC EOR can be used to delimit blocks of data
+ within a binary-mode Telnet stream.
+
+ 3.2.8 Telnet Terminal-Type Option: RFC-1091
+
+ The Terminal-Type option MUST use the terminal type names
+ officially defined in the Assigned Numbers RFC [INTRO:5], when
+ they are available for the particular terminal. However, the
+ receiver of a Terminal-Type option MUST accept any name.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ RFC-1091 [TELNET:10] updates an earlier version of the
+ Terminal-Type option defined in RFC-930. The earlier
+ version allowed a server host capable of supporting
+ multiple terminal types to learn the type of a particular
+ client's terminal, assuming that each physical terminal
+ had an intrinsic type. However, today a "terminal" is
+ often really a terminal emulator program running in a PC,
+ perhaps capable of emulating a range of terminal types.
+ Therefore, RFC-1091 extends the specification to allow a
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 20]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ more general terminal-type negotiation between User and
+ Server Telnets.
+
+ 3.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
+
+ 3.3.1 Telnet End-of-Line Convention
+
+ The Telnet protocol defines the sequence CR LF to mean "end-
+ of-line". For terminal input, this corresponds to a command-
+ completion or "end-of-line" key being pressed on a user
+ terminal; on an ASCII terminal, this is the CR key, but it may
+ also be labelled "Return" or "Enter".
+
+ When a Server Telnet receives the Telnet end-of-line sequence
+ CR LF as input from a remote terminal, the effect MUST be the
+ same as if the user had pressed the "end-of-line" key on a
+ local terminal. On server hosts that use ASCII, in particular,
+ receipt of the Telnet sequence CR LF must cause the same effect
+ as a local user pressing the CR key on a local terminal. Thus,
+ CR LF and CR NUL MUST have the same effect on an ASCII server
+ host when received as input over a Telnet connection.
+
+ A User Telnet MUST be able to send any of the forms: CR LF, CR
+ NUL, and LF. A User Telnet on an ASCII host SHOULD have a
+ user-controllable mode to send either CR LF or CR NUL when the
+ user presses the "end-of-line" key, and CR LF SHOULD be the
+ default.
+
+ The Telnet end-of-line sequence CR LF MUST be used to send
+ Telnet data that is not terminal-to-computer (e.g., for Server
+ Telnet sending output, or the Telnet protocol incorporated
+ another application protocol).
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ To allow interoperability between arbitrary Telnet clients
+ and servers, the Telnet protocol defined a standard
+ representation for a line terminator. Since the ASCII
+ character set includes no explicit end-of-line character,
+ systems have chosen various representations, e.g., CR, LF,
+ and the sequence CR LF. The Telnet protocol chose the CR
+ LF sequence as the standard for network transmission.
+
+ Unfortunately, the Telnet protocol specification in RFC-
+ 854 [TELNET:1] has turned out to be somewhat ambiguous on
+ what character(s) should be sent from client to server for
+ the "end-of-line" key. The result has been a massive and
+ continuing interoperability headache, made worse by
+ various faulty implementations of both User and Server
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 21]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ Telnets.
+
+ Although the Telnet protocol is based on a perfectly
+ symmetric model, in a remote login session the role of the
+ user at a terminal differs from the role of the server
+ host. For example, RFC-854 defines the meaning of CR, LF,
+ and CR LF as output from the server, but does not specify
+ what the User Telnet should send when the user presses the
+ "end-of-line" key on the terminal; this turns out to be
+ the point at issue.
+
+ When a user presses the "end-of-line" key, some User
+ Telnet implementations send CR LF, while others send CR
+ NUL (based on a different interpretation of the same
+ sentence in RFC-854). These will be equivalent for a
+ correctly-implemented ASCII server host, as discussed
+ above. For other servers, a mode in the User Telnet is
+ needed.
+
+ The existence of User Telnets that send only CR NUL when
+ CR is pressed creates a dilemma for non-ASCII hosts: they
+ can either treat CR NUL as equivalent to CR LF in input,
+ thus precluding the possibility of entering a "bare" CR,
+ or else lose complete interworking.
+
+ Suppose a user on host A uses Telnet to log into a server
+ host B, and then execute B's User Telnet program to log
+ into server host C. It is desirable for the Server/User
+ Telnet combination on B to be as transparent as possible,
+ i.e., to appear as if A were connected directly to C. In
+ particular, correct implementation will make B transparent
+ to Telnet end-of-line sequences, except that CR LF may be
+ translated to CR NUL or vice versa.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ To understand Telnet end-of-line issues, one must have at
+ least a general model of the relationship of Telnet to the
+ local operating system. The Server Telnet process is
+ typically coupled into the terminal driver software of the
+ operating system as a pseudo-terminal. A Telnet end-of-
+ line sequence received by the Server Telnet must have the
+ same effect as pressing the end-of-line key on a real
+ locally-connected terminal.
+
+ Operating systems that support interactive character-at-
+ a-time applications (e.g., editors) typically have two
+ internal modes for their terminal I/O: a formatted mode,
+ in which local conventions for end-of-line and other
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 22]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ formatting rules have been applied to the data stream, and
+ a "raw" mode, in which the application has direct access
+ to every character as it was entered. A Server Telnet
+ must be implemented in such a way that these modes have
+ the same effect for remote as for local terminals. For
+ example, suppose a CR LF or CR NUL is received by the
+ Server Telnet on an ASCII host. In raw mode, a CR
+ character is passed to the application; in formatted mode,
+ the local system's end-of-line convention is used.
+
+ 3.3.2 Data Entry Terminals
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ In addition to the line-oriented and character-oriented
+ ASCII terminals for which Telnet was designed, there are
+ several families of video display terminals that are
+ sometimes known as "data entry terminals" or DETs. The
+ IBM 3270 family is a well-known example.
+
+ Two Internet protocols have been designed to support
+ generic DETs: SUPDUP [TELNET:16, TELNET:17], and the DET
+ option [TELNET:18, TELNET:19]. The DET option drives a
+ data entry terminal over a Telnet connection using (sub-)
+ negotiation. SUPDUP is a completely separate terminal
+ protocol, which can be entered from Telnet by negotiation.
+ Although both SUPDUP and the DET option have been used
+ successfully in particular environments, neither has
+ gained general acceptance or wide implementation.
+
+ A different approach to DET interaction has been developed
+ for supporting the IBM 3270 family through Telnet,
+ although the same approach would be applicable to any DET.
+ The idea is to enter a "native DET" mode, in which the
+ native DET input/output stream is sent as binary data.
+ The Telnet EOR command is used to delimit logical records
+ (e.g., "screens") within this binary stream.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ The rules for entering and leaving native DET mode are as
+ follows:
+
+ o The Server uses the Terminal-Type option [TELNET:10]
+ to learn that the client is a DET.
+
+ o It is conventional, but not required, that both ends
+ negotiate the EOR option [TELNET:9].
+
+ o Both ends negotiate the Binary option [TELNET:3] to
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 23]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ enter native DET mode.
+
+ o When either end negotiates out of binary mode, the
+ other end does too, and the mode then reverts to
+ normal NVT.
+
+
+ 3.3.3 Option Requirements
+
+ Every Telnet implementation MUST support the Binary option
+ [TELNET:3] and the Suppress Go Ahead option [TELNET:5], and
+ SHOULD support the Echo [TELNET:4], Status [TELNET:6], End-of-
+ Record [TELNET:9], and Extended Options List [TELNET:8]
+ options.
+
+ A User or Server Telnet SHOULD support the Window Size Option
+ [TELNET:12] if the local operating system provides the
+ corresponding capability.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Note that the End-of-Record option only signifies that a
+ Telnet can receive a Telnet EOR without crashing;
+ therefore, every Telnet ought to be willing to accept
+ negotiation of the End-of-Record option. See also the
+ discussion in Section 3.2.3.
+
+ 3.3.4 Option Initiation
+
+ When the Telnet protocol is used in a client/server situation,
+ the server SHOULD initiate negotiation of the terminal
+ interaction mode it expects.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The Telnet protocol was defined to be perfectly
+ symmetrical, but its application is generally asymmetric.
+ Remote login has been known to fail because NEITHER side
+ initiated negotiation of the required non-default terminal
+ modes. It is generally the server that determines the
+ preferred mode, so the server needs to initiate the
+ negotiation; since the negotiation is symmetric, the user
+ can also initiate it.
+
+ A client (User Telnet) SHOULD provide a means for users to
+ enable and disable the initiation of option negotiation.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ A user sometimes needs to connect to an application
+ service (e.g., FTP or SMTP) that uses Telnet for its
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 24]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ control stream but does not support Telnet options. User
+ Telnet may be used for this purpose if initiation of
+ option negotiation is disabled.
+
+ 3.3.5 Telnet Linemode Option
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ An important new Telnet option, LINEMODE [TELNET:12], has
+ been proposed. The LINEMODE option provides a standard
+ way for a User Telnet and a Server Telnet to agree that
+ the client rather than the server will perform terminal
+ character processing. When the client has prepared a
+ complete line of text, it will send it to the server in
+ (usually) one TCP packet. This option will greatly
+ decrease the packet cost of Telnet sessions and will also
+ give much better user response over congested or long-
+ delay networks.
+
+ The LINEMODE option allows dynamic switching between local
+ and remote character processing. For example, the Telnet
+ connection will automatically negotiate into single-
+ character mode while a full screen editor is running, and
+ then return to linemode when the editor is finished.
+
+ We expect that when this RFC is released, hosts should
+ implement the client side of this option, and may
+ implement the server side of this option. To properly
+ implement the server side, the server needs to be able to
+ tell the local system not to do any input character
+ processing, but to remember its current terminal state and
+ notify the Server Telnet process whenever the state
+ changes. This will allow password echoing and full screen
+ editors to be handled properly, for example.
+
+ 3.4 TELNET/USER INTERFACE
+
+ 3.4.1 Character Set Transparency
+
+ User Telnet implementations SHOULD be able to send or receive
+ any 7-bit ASCII character. Where possible, any special
+ character interpretations by the user host's operating system
+ SHOULD be bypassed so that these characters can conveniently be
+ sent and received on the connection.
+
+ Some character value MUST be reserved as "escape to command
+ mode"; conventionally, doubling this character allows it to be
+ entered as data. The specific character used SHOULD be user
+ selectable.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 25]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ On binary-mode connections, a User Telnet program MAY provide
+ an escape mechanism for entering arbitrary 8-bit values, if the
+ host operating system doesn't allow them to be entered directly
+ from the keyboard.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ The transparency issues are less pressing on servers, but
+ implementors should take care in dealing with issues like:
+ masking off parity bits (sent by an older, non-conforming
+ client) before they reach programs that expect only NVT
+ ASCII, and properly handling programs that request 8-bit
+ data streams.
+
+ 3.4.2 Telnet Commands
+
+ A User Telnet program MUST provide a user the capability of
+ entering any of the Telnet control functions IP, AO, or AYT,
+ and SHOULD provide the capability of entering EC, EL, and
+ Break.
+
+ 3.4.3 TCP Connection Errors
+
+ A User Telnet program SHOULD report to the user any TCP errors
+ that are reported by the transport layer (see "TCP/Application
+ Layer Interface" section in [INTRO:1]).
+
+ 3.4.4 Non-Default Telnet Contact Port
+
+ A User Telnet program SHOULD allow the user to optionally
+ specify a non-standard contact port number at the Server Telnet
+ host.
+
+ 3.4.5 Flushing Output
+
+ A User Telnet program SHOULD provide the user the ability to
+ specify whether or not output should be flushed when an IP is
+ sent; see Section 3.2.4.
+
+ For any output flushing scheme that causes the User Telnet to
+ flush output locally until a Telnet signal is received from the
+ Server, there SHOULD be a way for the user to manually restore
+ normal output, in case the Server fails to send the expected
+ signal.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 26]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ 3.5. TELNET REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
+
+
+ | | | | |S| |
+ | | | | |H| |F
+ | | | | |O|M|o
+ | | |S| |U|U|o
+ | | |H| |L|S|t
+ | |M|O| |D|T|n
+ | |U|U|M| | |o
+ | |S|L|A|N|N|t
+ | |T|D|Y|O|O|t
+FEATURE |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
+-------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+ | | | | | | |
+Option Negotiation |3.2.1 |x| | | | |
+ Avoid negotiation loops |3.2.1 |x| | | | |
+ Refuse unsupported options |3.2.1 |x| | | | |
+ Negotiation OK anytime on connection |3.2.1 | |x| | | |
+ Default to NVT |3.2.1 |x| | | | |
+ Send official name in Term-Type option |3.2.8 |x| | | | |
+ Accept any name in Term-Type option |3.2.8 |x| | | | |
+ Implement Binary, Suppress-GA options |3.3.3 |x| | | | |
+ Echo, Status, EOL, Ext-Opt-List options |3.3.3 | |x| | | |
+ Implement Window-Size option if appropriate |3.3.3 | |x| | | |
+ Server initiate mode negotiations |3.3.4 | |x| | | |
+ User can enable/disable init negotiations |3.3.4 | |x| | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Go-Aheads | | | | | | |
+ Non-GA server negotiate SUPPRESS-GA option |3.2.2 |x| | | | |
+ User or Server accept SUPPRESS-GA option |3.2.2 |x| | | | |
+ User Telnet ignore GA's |3.2.2 | | |x| | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Control Functions | | | | | | |
+ Support SE NOP DM IP AO AYT SB |3.2.3 |x| | | | |
+ Support EOR EC EL Break |3.2.3 | | |x| | |
+ Ignore unsupported control functions |3.2.3 |x| | | | |
+ User, Server discard urgent data up to DM |3.2.4 |x| | | | |
+ User Telnet send "Synch" after IP, AO, AYT |3.2.4 | |x| | | |
+ Server Telnet reply Synch to IP |3.2.4 | | |x| | |
+ Server Telnet reply Synch to AO |3.2.4 |x| | | | |
+ User Telnet can flush output when send IP |3.2.4 | |x| | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Encoding | | | | | | |
+ Send high-order bit in NVT mode |3.2.5 | | | |x| |
+ Send high-order bit as parity bit |3.2.5 | | | | |x|
+ Negot. BINARY if pass high-ord. bit to applic |3.2.5 | |x| | | |
+ Always double IAC data byte |3.2.6 |x| | | | |
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 27]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 REMOTE LOGIN -- TELNET October 1989
+
+
+ Double IAC data byte in binary mode |3.2.7 |x| | | | |
+ Obey Telnet cmds in binary mode |3.2.7 |x| | | | |
+ End-of-line, CR NUL in binary mode |3.2.7 | | | | |x|
+ | | | | | | |
+End-of-Line | | | | | | |
+ EOL at Server same as local end-of-line |3.3.1 |x| | | | |
+ ASCII Server accept CR LF or CR NUL for EOL |3.3.1 |x| | | | |
+ User Telnet able to send CR LF, CR NUL, or LF |3.3.1 |x| | | | |
+ ASCII user able to select CR LF/CR NUL |3.3.1 | |x| | | |
+ User Telnet default mode is CR LF |3.3.1 | |x| | | |
+ Non-interactive uses CR LF for EOL |3.3.1 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+User Telnet interface | | | | | | |
+ Input & output all 7-bit characters |3.4.1 | |x| | | |
+ Bypass local op sys interpretation |3.4.1 | |x| | | |
+ Escape character |3.4.1 |x| | | | |
+ User-settable escape character |3.4.1 | |x| | | |
+ Escape to enter 8-bit values |3.4.1 | | |x| | |
+ Can input IP, AO, AYT |3.4.2 |x| | | | |
+ Can input EC, EL, Break |3.4.2 | |x| | | |
+ Report TCP connection errors to user |3.4.3 | |x| | | |
+ Optional non-default contact port |3.4.4 | |x| | | |
+ Can spec: output flushed when IP sent |3.4.5 | |x| | | |
+ Can manually restore output mode |3.4.5 | |x| | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 28]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+4. FILE TRANSFER
+
+ 4.1 FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL -- FTP
+
+ 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
+
+ The File Transfer Protocol FTP is the primary Internet standard
+ for file transfer. The current specification is contained in
+ RFC-959 [FTP:1].
+
+ FTP uses separate simultaneous TCP connections for control and
+ for data transfer. The FTP protocol includes many features,
+ some of which are not commonly implemented. However, for every
+ feature in FTP, there exists at least one implementation. The
+ minimum implementation defined in RFC-959 was too small, so a
+ somewhat larger minimum implementation is defined here.
+
+ Internet users have been unnecessarily burdened for years by
+ deficient FTP implementations. Protocol implementors have
+ suffered from the erroneous opinion that implementing FTP ought
+ to be a small and trivial task. This is wrong, because FTP has
+ a user interface, because it has to deal (correctly) with the
+ whole variety of communication and operating system errors that
+ may occur, and because it has to handle the great diversity of
+ real file systems in the world.
+
+ 4.1.2. PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH
+
+ 4.1.2.1 LOCAL Type: RFC-959 Section 3.1.1.4
+
+ An FTP program MUST support TYPE I ("IMAGE" or binary type)
+ as well as TYPE L 8 ("LOCAL" type with logical byte size 8).
+ A machine whose memory is organized into m-bit words, where
+ m is not a multiple of 8, MAY also support TYPE L m.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The command "TYPE L 8" is often required to transfer
+ binary data between a machine whose memory is organized
+ into (e.g.) 36-bit words and a machine with an 8-bit
+ byte organization. For an 8-bit byte machine, TYPE L 8
+ is equivalent to IMAGE.
+
+ "TYPE L m" is sometimes specified to the FTP programs
+ on two m-bit word machines to ensure the correct
+ transfer of a native-mode binary file from one machine
+ to the other. However, this command should have the
+ same effect on these machines as "TYPE I".
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 29]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ 4.1.2.2 Telnet Format Control: RFC-959 Section 3.1.1.5.2
+
+ A host that makes no distinction between TYPE N and TYPE T
+ SHOULD implement TYPE T to be identical to TYPE N.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ This provision should ease interoperation with hosts
+ that do make this distinction.
+
+ Many hosts represent text files internally as strings
+ of ASCII characters, using the embedded ASCII format
+ effector characters (LF, BS, FF, ...) to control the
+ format when a file is printed. For such hosts, there
+ is no distinction between "print" files and other
+ files. However, systems that use record structured
+ files typically need a special format for printable
+ files (e.g., ASA carriage control). For the latter
+ hosts, FTP allows a choice of TYPE N or TYPE T.
+
+ 4.1.2.3 Page Structure: RFC-959 Section 3.1.2.3 and Appendix I
+
+ Implementation of page structure is NOT RECOMMENDED in
+ general. However, if a host system does need to implement
+ FTP for "random access" or "holey" files, it MUST use the
+ defined page structure format rather than define a new
+ private FTP format.
+
+ 4.1.2.4 Data Structure Transformations: RFC-959 Section 3.1.2
+
+ An FTP transformation between record-structure and file-
+ structure SHOULD be invertible, to the extent possible while
+ making the result useful on the target host.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ RFC-959 required strict invertibility between record-
+ structure and file-structure, but in practice,
+ efficiency and convenience often preclude it.
+ Therefore, the requirement is being relaxed. There are
+ two different objectives for transferring a file:
+ processing it on the target host, or just storage. For
+ storage, strict invertibility is important. For
+ processing, the file created on the target host needs
+ to be in the format expected by application programs on
+ that host.
+
+ As an example of the conflict, imagine a record-
+ oriented operating system that requires some data files
+ to have exactly 80 bytes in each record. While STORing
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 30]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ a file on such a host, an FTP Server must be able to
+ pad each line or record to 80 bytes; a later retrieval
+ of such a file cannot be strictly invertible.
+
+ 4.1.2.5 Data Connection Management: RFC-959 Section 3.3
+
+ A User-FTP that uses STREAM mode SHOULD send a PORT command
+ to assign a non-default data port before each transfer
+ command is issued.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ This is required because of the long delay after a TCP
+ connection is closed until its socket pair can be
+ reused, to allow multiple transfers during a single FTP
+ session. Sending a port command can avoided if a
+ transfer mode other than stream is used, by leaving the
+ data transfer connection open between transfers.
+
+ 4.1.2.6 PASV Command: RFC-959 Section 4.1.2
+
+ A server-FTP MUST implement the PASV command.
+
+ If multiple third-party transfers are to be executed during
+ the same session, a new PASV command MUST be issued before
+ each transfer command, to obtain a unique port pair.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ The format of the 227 reply to a PASV command is not
+ well standardized. In particular, an FTP client cannot
+ assume that the parentheses shown on page 40 of RFC-959
+ will be present (and in fact, Figure 3 on page 43 omits
+ them). Therefore, a User-FTP program that interprets
+ the PASV reply must scan the reply for the first digit
+ of the host and port numbers.
+
+ Note that the host number h1,h2,h3,h4 is the IP address
+ of the server host that is sending the reply, and that
+ p1,p2 is a non-default data transfer port that PASV has
+ assigned.
+
+ 4.1.2.7 LIST and NLST Commands: RFC-959 Section 4.1.3
+
+ The data returned by an NLST command MUST contain only a
+ simple list of legal pathnames, such that the server can use
+ them directly as the arguments of subsequent data transfer
+ commands for the individual files.
+
+ The data returned by a LIST or NLST command SHOULD use an
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 31]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ implied TYPE AN, unless the current type is EBCDIC, in which
+ case an implied TYPE EN SHOULD be used.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Many FTP clients support macro-commands that will get
+ or put files matching a wildcard specification, using
+ NLST to obtain a list of pathnames. The expansion of
+ "multiple-put" is local to the client, but "multiple-
+ get" requires cooperation by the server.
+
+ The implied type for LIST and NLST is designed to
+ provide compatibility with existing User-FTPs, and in
+ particular with multiple-get commands.
+
+ 4.1.2.8 SITE Command: RFC-959 Section 4.1.3
+
+ A Server-FTP SHOULD use the SITE command for non-standard
+ features, rather than invent new private commands or
+ unstandardized extensions to existing commands.
+
+ 4.1.2.9 STOU Command: RFC-959 Section 4.1.3
+
+ The STOU command stores into a uniquely named file. When it
+ receives an STOU command, a Server-FTP MUST return the
+ actual file name in the "125 Transfer Starting" or the "150
+ Opening Data Connection" message that precedes the transfer
+ (the 250 reply code mentioned in RFC-959 is incorrect). The
+ exact format of these messages is hereby defined to be as
+ follows:
+
+ 125 FILE: pppp
+ 150 FILE: pppp
+
+ where pppp represents the unique pathname of the file that
+ will be written.
+
+ 4.1.2.10 Telnet End-of-line Code: RFC-959, Page 34
+
+ Implementors MUST NOT assume any correspondence between READ
+ boundaries on the control connection and the Telnet EOL
+ sequences (CR LF).
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Thus, a server-FTP (or User-FTP) must continue reading
+ characters from the control connection until a complete
+ Telnet EOL sequence is encountered, before processing
+ the command (or response, respectively). Conversely, a
+ single READ from the control connection may include
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 32]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ more than one FTP command.
+
+ 4.1.2.11 FTP Replies: RFC-959 Section 4.2, Page 35
+
+ A Server-FTP MUST send only correctly formatted replies on
+ the control connection. Note that RFC-959 (unlike earlier
+ versions of the FTP spec) contains no provision for a
+ "spontaneous" reply message.
+
+ A Server-FTP SHOULD use the reply codes defined in RFC-959
+ whenever they apply. However, a server-FTP MAY use a
+ different reply code when needed, as long as the general
+ rules of Section 4.2 are followed. When the implementor has
+ a choice between a 4xx and 5xx reply code, a Server-FTP
+ SHOULD send a 4xx (temporary failure) code when there is any
+ reasonable possibility that a failed FTP will succeed a few
+ hours later.
+
+ A User-FTP SHOULD generally use only the highest-order digit
+ of a 3-digit reply code for making a procedural decision, to
+ prevent difficulties when a Server-FTP uses non-standard
+ reply codes.
+
+ A User-FTP MUST be able to handle multi-line replies. If
+ the implementation imposes a limit on the number of lines
+ and if this limit is exceeded, the User-FTP MUST recover,
+ e.g., by ignoring the excess lines until the end of the
+ multi-line reply is reached.
+
+ A User-FTP SHOULD NOT interpret a 421 reply code ("Service
+ not available, closing control connection") specially, but
+ SHOULD detect closing of the control connection by the
+ server.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Server implementations that fail to strictly follow the
+ reply rules often cause FTP user programs to hang.
+ Note that RFC-959 resolved ambiguities in the reply
+ rules found in earlier FTP specifications and must be
+ followed.
+
+ It is important to choose FTP reply codes that properly
+ distinguish between temporary and permanent failures,
+ to allow the successful use of file transfer client
+ daemons. These programs depend on the reply codes to
+ decide whether or not to retry a failed transfer; using
+ a permanent failure code (5xx) for a temporary error
+ will cause these programs to give up unnecessarily.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 33]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ When the meaning of a reply matches exactly the text
+ shown in RFC-959, uniformity will be enhanced by using
+ the RFC-959 text verbatim. However, a Server-FTP
+ implementor is encouraged to choose reply text that
+ conveys specific system-dependent information, when
+ appropriate.
+
+ 4.1.2.12 Connections: RFC-959 Section 5.2
+
+ The words "and the port used" in the second paragraph of
+ this section of RFC-959 are erroneous (historical), and they
+ should be ignored.
+
+ On a multihomed server host, the default data transfer port
+ (L-1) MUST be associated with the same local IP address as
+ the corresponding control connection to port L.
+
+ A user-FTP MUST NOT send any Telnet controls other than
+ SYNCH and IP on an FTP control connection. In particular, it
+ MUST NOT attempt to negotiate Telnet options on the control
+ connection. However, a server-FTP MUST be capable of
+ accepting and refusing Telnet negotiations (i.e., sending
+ DONT/WONT).
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Although the RFC says: "Server- and User- processes
+ should follow the conventions for the Telnet
+ protocol...[on the control connection]", it is not the
+ intent that Telnet option negotiation is to be
+ employed.
+
+ 4.1.2.13 Minimum Implementation; RFC-959 Section 5.1
+
+ The following commands and options MUST be supported by
+ every server-FTP and user-FTP, except in cases where the
+ underlying file system or operating system does not allow or
+ support a particular command.
+
+ Type: ASCII Non-print, IMAGE, LOCAL 8
+ Mode: Stream
+ Structure: File, Record*
+ Commands:
+ USER, PASS, ACCT,
+ PORT, PASV,
+ TYPE, MODE, STRU,
+ RETR, STOR, APPE,
+ RNFR, RNTO, DELE,
+ CWD, CDUP, RMD, MKD, PWD,
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 34]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ LIST, NLST,
+ SYST, STAT,
+ HELP, NOOP, QUIT.
+
+ *Record structure is REQUIRED only for hosts whose file
+ systems support record structure.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Vendors are encouraged to implement a larger subset of
+ the protocol. For example, there are important
+ robustness features in the protocol (e.g., Restart,
+ ABOR, block mode) that would be an aid to some Internet
+ users but are not widely implemented.
+
+ A host that does not have record structures in its file
+ system may still accept files with STRU R, recording
+ the byte stream literally.
+
+ 4.1.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
+
+ 4.1.3.1 Non-standard Command Verbs
+
+ FTP allows "experimental" commands, whose names begin with
+ "X". If these commands are subsequently adopted as
+ standards, there may still be existing implementations using
+ the "X" form. At present, this is true for the directory
+ commands:
+
+ RFC-959 "Experimental"
+
+ MKD XMKD
+ RMD XRMD
+ PWD XPWD
+ CDUP XCUP
+ CWD XCWD
+
+ All FTP implementations SHOULD recognize both forms of these
+ commands, by simply equating them with extra entries in the
+ command lookup table.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ A User-FTP can access a server that supports only the
+ "X" forms by implementing a mode switch, or
+ automatically using the following procedure: if the
+ RFC-959 form of one of the above commands is rejected
+ with a 500 or 502 response code, then try the
+ experimental form; any other response would be passed
+ to the user.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 35]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ 4.1.3.2 Idle Timeout
+
+ A Server-FTP process SHOULD have an idle timeout, which will
+ terminate the process and close the control connection if
+ the server is inactive (i.e., no command or data transfer in
+ progress) for a long period of time. The idle timeout time
+ SHOULD be configurable, and the default should be at least 5
+ minutes.
+
+ A client FTP process ("User-PI" in RFC-959) will need
+ timeouts on responses only if it is invoked from a program.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Without a timeout, a Server-FTP process may be left
+ pending indefinitely if the corresponding client
+ crashes without closing the control connection.
+
+ 4.1.3.3 Concurrency of Data and Control
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The intent of the designers of FTP was that a user
+ should be able to send a STAT command at any time while
+ data transfer was in progress and that the server-FTP
+ would reply immediately with status -- e.g., the number
+ of bytes transferred so far. Similarly, an ABOR
+ command should be possible at any time during a data
+ transfer.
+
+ Unfortunately, some small-machine operating systems
+ make such concurrent programming difficult, and some
+ other implementers seek minimal solutions, so some FTP
+ implementations do not allow concurrent use of the data
+ and control connections. Even such a minimal server
+ must be prepared to accept and defer a STAT or ABOR
+ command that arrives during data transfer.
+
+ 4.1.3.4 FTP Restart Mechanism
+
+ The description of the 110 reply on pp. 40-41 of RFC-959 is
+ incorrect; the correct description is as follows. A restart
+ reply message, sent over the control connection from the
+ receiving FTP to the User-FTP, has the format:
+
+ 110 MARK ssss = rrrr
+
+ Here:
+
+ * ssss is a text string that appeared in a Restart Marker
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 36]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ in the data stream and encodes a position in the
+ sender's file system;
+
+ * rrrr encodes the corresponding position in the
+ receiver's file system.
+
+ The encoding, which is specific to a particular file system
+ and network implementation, is always generated and
+ interpreted by the same system, either sender or receiver.
+
+ When an FTP that implements restart receives a Restart
+ Marker in the data stream, it SHOULD force the data to that
+ point to be written to stable storage before encoding the
+ corresponding position rrrr. An FTP sending Restart Markers
+ MUST NOT assume that 110 replies will be returned
+ synchronously with the data, i.e., it must not await a 110
+ reply before sending more data.
+
+ Two new reply codes are hereby defined for errors
+ encountered in restarting a transfer:
+
+ 554 Requested action not taken: invalid REST parameter.
+
+ A 554 reply may result from a FTP service command that
+ follows a REST command. The reply indicates that the
+ existing file at the Server-FTP cannot be repositioned
+ as specified in the REST.
+
+ 555 Requested action not taken: type or stru mismatch.
+
+ A 555 reply may result from an APPE command or from any
+ FTP service command following a REST command. The
+ reply indicates that there is some mismatch between the
+ current transfer parameters (type and stru) and the
+ attributes of the existing file.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Note that the FTP Restart mechanism requires that Block
+ or Compressed mode be used for data transfer, to allow
+ the Restart Markers to be included within the data
+ stream. The frequency of Restart Markers can be low.
+
+ Restart Markers mark a place in the data stream, but
+ the receiver may be performing some transformation on
+ the data as it is stored into stable storage. In
+ general, the receiver's encoding must include any state
+ information necessary to restart this transformation at
+ any point of the FTP data stream. For example, in TYPE
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 37]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ A transfers, some receiver hosts transform CR LF
+ sequences into a single LF character on disk. If a
+ Restart Marker happens to fall between CR and LF, the
+ receiver must encode in rrrr that the transfer must be
+ restarted in a "CR has been seen and discarded" state.
+
+ Note that the Restart Marker is required to be encoded
+ as a string of printable ASCII characters, regardless
+ of the type of the data.
+
+ RFC-959 says that restart information is to be returned
+ "to the user". This should not be taken literally. In
+ general, the User-FTP should save the restart
+ information (ssss,rrrr) in stable storage, e.g., append
+ it to a restart control file. An empty restart control
+ file should be created when the transfer first starts
+ and deleted automatically when the transfer completes
+ successfully. It is suggested that this file have a
+ name derived in an easily-identifiable manner from the
+ name of the file being transferred and the remote host
+ name; this is analogous to the means used by many text
+ editors for naming "backup" files.
+
+ There are three cases for FTP restart.
+
+ (1) User-to-Server Transfer
+
+ The User-FTP puts Restart Markers <ssss> at
+ convenient places in the data stream. When the
+ Server-FTP receives a Marker, it writes all prior
+ data to disk, encodes its file system position and
+ transformation state as rrrr, and returns a "110
+ MARK ssss = rrrr" reply over the control
+ connection. The User-FTP appends the pair
+ (ssss,rrrr) to its restart control file.
+
+ To restart the transfer, the User-FTP fetches the
+ last (ssss,rrrr) pair from the restart control
+ file, repositions its local file system and
+ transformation state using ssss, and sends the
+ command "REST rrrr" to the Server-FTP.
+
+ (2) Server-to-User Transfer
+
+ The Server-FTP puts Restart Markers <ssss> at
+ convenient places in the data stream. When the
+ User-FTP receives a Marker, it writes all prior
+ data to disk, encodes its file system position and
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 38]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ transformation state as rrrr, and appends the pair
+ (rrrr,ssss) to its restart control file.
+
+ To restart the transfer, the User-FTP fetches the
+ last (rrrr,ssss) pair from the restart control
+ file, repositions its local file system and
+ transformation state using rrrr, and sends the
+ command "REST ssss" to the Server-FTP.
+
+ (3) Server-to-Server ("Third-Party") Transfer
+
+ The sending Server-FTP puts Restart Markers <ssss>
+ at convenient places in the data stream. When it
+ receives a Marker, the receiving Server-FTP writes
+ all prior data to disk, encodes its file system
+ position and transformation state as rrrr, and
+ sends a "110 MARK ssss = rrrr" reply over the
+ control connection to the User. The User-FTP
+ appends the pair (ssss,rrrr) to its restart
+ control file.
+
+ To restart the transfer, the User-FTP fetches the
+ last (ssss,rrrr) pair from the restart control
+ file, sends "REST ssss" to the sending Server-FTP,
+ and sends "REST rrrr" to the receiving Server-FTP.
+
+
+ 4.1.4 FTP/USER INTERFACE
+
+ This section discusses the user interface for a User-FTP
+ program.
+
+ 4.1.4.1 Pathname Specification
+
+ Since FTP is intended for use in a heterogeneous
+ environment, User-FTP implementations MUST support remote
+ pathnames as arbitrary character strings, so that their form
+ and content are not limited by the conventions of the local
+ operating system.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ In particular, remote pathnames can be of arbitrary
+ length, and all the printing ASCII characters as well
+ as space (0x20) must be allowed. RFC-959 allows a
+ pathname to contain any 7-bit ASCII character except CR
+ or LF.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 39]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ 4.1.4.2 "QUOTE" Command
+
+ A User-FTP program MUST implement a "QUOTE" command that
+ will pass an arbitrary character string to the server and
+ display all resulting response messages to the user.
+
+ To make the "QUOTE" command useful, a User-FTP SHOULD send
+ transfer control commands to the server as the user enters
+ them, rather than saving all the commands and sending them
+ to the server only when a data transfer is started.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The "QUOTE" command is essential to allow the user to
+ access servers that require system-specific commands
+ (e.g., SITE or ALLO), or to invoke new or optional
+ features that are not implemented by the User-FTP. For
+ example, "QUOTE" may be used to specify "TYPE A T" to
+ send a print file to hosts that require the
+ distinction, even if the User-FTP does not recognize
+ that TYPE.
+
+ 4.1.4.3 Displaying Replies to User
+
+ A User-FTP SHOULD display to the user the full text of all
+ error reply messages it receives. It SHOULD have a
+ "verbose" mode in which all commands it sends and the full
+ text and reply codes it receives are displayed, for
+ diagnosis of problems.
+
+ 4.1.4.4 Maintaining Synchronization
+
+ The state machine in a User-FTP SHOULD be forgiving of
+ missing and unexpected reply messages, in order to maintain
+ command synchronization with the server.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 40]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ 4.1.5 FTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
+
+ | | | | |S| |
+ | | | | |H| |F
+ | | | | |O|M|o
+ | | |S| |U|U|o
+ | | |H| |L|S|t
+ | |M|O| |D|T|n
+ | |U|U|M| | |o
+ | |S|L|A|N|N|t
+ | |T|D|Y|O|O|t
+FEATURE |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
+-------------------------------------------|---------------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+Implement TYPE T if same as TYPE N |4.1.2.2 | |x| | | |
+File/Record transform invertible if poss. |4.1.2.4 | |x| | | |
+User-FTP send PORT cmd for stream mode |4.1.2.5 | |x| | | |
+Server-FTP implement PASV |4.1.2.6 |x| | | | |
+ PASV is per-transfer |4.1.2.6 |x| | | | |
+NLST reply usable in RETR cmds |4.1.2.7 |x| | | | |
+Implied type for LIST and NLST |4.1.2.7 | |x| | | |
+SITE cmd for non-standard features |4.1.2.8 | |x| | | |
+STOU cmd return pathname as specified |4.1.2.9 |x| | | | |
+Use TCP READ boundaries on control conn. |4.1.2.10 | | | | |x|
+ | | | | | | |
+Server-FTP send only correct reply format |4.1.2.11 |x| | | | |
+Server-FTP use defined reply code if poss. |4.1.2.11 | |x| | | |
+ New reply code following Section 4.2 |4.1.2.11 | | |x| | |
+User-FTP use only high digit of reply |4.1.2.11 | |x| | | |
+User-FTP handle multi-line reply lines |4.1.2.11 |x| | | | |
+User-FTP handle 421 reply specially |4.1.2.11 | | | |x| |
+ | | | | | | |
+Default data port same IP addr as ctl conn |4.1.2.12 |x| | | | |
+User-FTP send Telnet cmds exc. SYNCH, IP |4.1.2.12 | | | | |x|
+User-FTP negotiate Telnet options |4.1.2.12 | | | | |x|
+Server-FTP handle Telnet options |4.1.2.12 |x| | | | |
+Handle "Experimental" directory cmds |4.1.3.1 | |x| | | |
+Idle timeout in server-FTP |4.1.3.2 | |x| | | |
+ Configurable idle timeout |4.1.3.2 | |x| | | |
+Receiver checkpoint data at Restart Marker |4.1.3.4 | |x| | | |
+Sender assume 110 replies are synchronous |4.1.3.4 | | | | |x|
+ | | | | | | |
+Support TYPE: | | | | | | |
+ ASCII - Non-Print (AN) |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ ASCII - Telnet (AT) -- if same as AN |4.1.2.2 | |x| | | |
+ ASCII - Carriage Control (AC) |959 3.1.1.5.2 | | |x| | |
+ EBCDIC - (any form) |959 3.1.1.2 | | |x| | |
+ IMAGE |4.1.2.1 |x| | | | |
+ LOCAL 8 |4.1.2.1 |x| | | | |
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 41]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+ LOCAL m |4.1.2.1 | | |x| | |2
+ | | | | | | |
+Support MODE: | | | | | | |
+ Stream |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ Block |959 3.4.2 | | |x| | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Support STRUCTURE: | | | | | | |
+ File |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ Record |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |3
+ Page |4.1.2.3 | | | |x| |
+ | | | | | | |
+Support commands: | | | | | | |
+ USER |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ PASS |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ ACCT |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ CWD |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ CDUP |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ SMNT |959 5.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ REIN |959 5.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ QUIT |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+ PORT |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ PASV |4.1.2.6 |x| | | | |
+ TYPE |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |1
+ STRU |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |1
+ MODE |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |1
+ | | | | | | |
+ RETR |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ STOR |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ STOU |959 5.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ APPE |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ ALLO |959 5.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ REST |959 5.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ RNFR |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ RNTO |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ ABOR |959 5.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ DELE |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ RMD |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ MKD |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ PWD |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ LIST |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ NLST |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ SITE |4.1.2.8 | | |x| | |
+ STAT |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ SYST |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ HELP |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ NOOP |4.1.2.13 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 42]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- FTP October 1989
+
+
+User Interface: | | | | | | |
+ Arbitrary pathnames |4.1.4.1 |x| | | | |
+ Implement "QUOTE" command |4.1.4.2 |x| | | | |
+ Transfer control commands immediately |4.1.4.2 | |x| | | |
+ Display error messages to user |4.1.4.3 | |x| | | |
+ Verbose mode |4.1.4.3 | |x| | | |
+ Maintain synchronization with server |4.1.4.4 | |x| | | |
+
+Footnotes:
+
+(1) For the values shown earlier.
+
+(2) Here m is number of bits in a memory word.
+
+(3) Required for host with record-structured file system, optional
+ otherwise.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 43]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- TFTP October 1989
+
+
+ 4.2 TRIVIAL FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL -- TFTP
+
+ 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION
+
+ The Trivial File Transfer Protocol TFTP is defined in RFC-783
+ [TFTP:1].
+
+ TFTP provides its own reliable delivery with UDP as its
+ transport protocol, using a simple stop-and-wait acknowledgment
+ system. Since TFTP has an effective window of only one 512
+ octet segment, it can provide good performance only over paths
+ that have a small delay*bandwidth product. The TFTP file
+ interface is very simple, providing no access control or
+ security.
+
+ TFTP's most important application is bootstrapping a host over
+ a local network, since it is simple and small enough to be
+ easily implemented in EPROM [BOOT:1, BOOT:2]. Vendors are
+ urged to support TFTP for booting.
+
+ 4.2.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH
+
+ The TFTP specification [TFTP:1] is written in an open style,
+ and does not fully specify many parts of the protocol.
+
+ 4.2.2.1 Transfer Modes: RFC-783, Page 3
+
+ The transfer mode "mail" SHOULD NOT be supported.
+
+ 4.2.2.2 UDP Header: RFC-783, Page 17
+
+ The Length field of a UDP header is incorrectly defined; it
+ includes the UDP header length (8).
+
+ 4.2.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
+
+ 4.2.3.1 Sorcerer's Apprentice Syndrome
+
+ There is a serious bug, known as the "Sorcerer's Apprentice
+ Syndrome," in the protocol specification. While it does not
+ cause incorrect operation of the transfer (the file will
+ always be transferred correctly if the transfer completes),
+ this bug may cause excessive retransmission, which may cause
+ the transfer to time out.
+
+ Implementations MUST contain the fix for this problem: the
+ sender (i.e., the side originating the DATA packets) must
+ never resend the current DATA packet on receipt of a
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 44]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- TFTP October 1989
+
+
+ duplicate ACK.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The bug is caused by the protocol rule that either
+ side, on receiving an old duplicate datagram, may
+ resend the current datagram. If a packet is delayed in
+ the network but later successfully delivered after
+ either side has timed out and retransmitted a packet, a
+ duplicate copy of the response may be generated. If
+ the other side responds to this duplicate with a
+ duplicate of its own, then every datagram will be sent
+ in duplicate for the remainder of the transfer (unless
+ a datagram is lost, breaking the repetition). Worse
+ yet, since the delay is often caused by congestion,
+ this duplicate transmission will usually causes more
+ congestion, leading to more delayed packets, etc.
+
+ The following example may help to clarify this problem.
+
+ TFTP A TFTP B
+
+ (1) Receive ACK X-1
+ Send DATA X
+ (2) Receive DATA X
+ Send ACK X
+ (ACK X is delayed in network,
+ and A times out):
+ (3) Retransmit DATA X
+
+ (4) Receive DATA X again
+ Send ACK X again
+ (5) Receive (delayed) ACK X
+ Send DATA X+1
+ (6) Receive DATA X+1
+ Send ACK X+1
+ (7) Receive ACK X again
+ Send DATA X+1 again
+ (8) Receive DATA X+1 again
+ Send ACK X+1 again
+ (9) Receive ACK X+1
+ Send DATA X+2
+ (10) Receive DATA X+2
+ Send ACK X+3
+ (11) Receive ACK X+1 again
+ Send DATA X+2 again
+ (12) Receive DATA X+2 again
+ Send ACK X+3 again
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 45]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- TFTP October 1989
+
+
+ Notice that once the delayed ACK arrives, the protocol
+ settles down to duplicate all further packets
+ (sequences 5-8 and 9-12). The problem is caused not by
+ either side timing out, but by both sides
+ retransmitting the current packet when they receive a
+ duplicate.
+
+ The fix is to break the retransmission loop, as
+ indicated above. This is analogous to the behavior of
+ TCP. It is then possible to remove the retransmission
+ timer on the receiver, since the resent ACK will never
+ cause any action; this is a useful simplification where
+ TFTP is used in a bootstrap program. It is OK to allow
+ the timer to remain, and it may be helpful if the
+ retransmitted ACK replaces one that was genuinely lost
+ in the network. The sender still requires a retransmit
+ timer, of course.
+
+ 4.2.3.2 Timeout Algorithms
+
+ A TFTP implementation MUST use an adaptive timeout.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ TCP retransmission algorithms provide a useful base to
+ work from. At least an exponential backoff of
+ retransmission timeout is necessary.
+
+ 4.2.3.3 Extensions
+
+ A variety of non-standard extensions have been made to TFTP,
+ including additional transfer modes and a secure operation
+ mode (with passwords). None of these have been
+ standardized.
+
+ 4.2.3.4 Access Control
+
+ A server TFTP implementation SHOULD include some
+ configurable access control over what pathnames are allowed
+ in TFTP operations.
+
+ 4.2.3.5 Broadcast Request
+
+ A TFTP request directed to a broadcast address SHOULD be
+ silently ignored.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Due to the weak access control capability of TFTP,
+ directed broadcasts of TFTP requests to random networks
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 46]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 FILE TRANSFER -- TFTP October 1989
+
+
+ could create a significant security hole.
+
+ 4.2.4 TFTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
+
+ | | | | |S| |
+ | | | | |H| |F
+ | | | | |O|M|o
+ | | |S| |U|U|o
+ | | |H| |L|S|t
+ | |M|O| |D|T|n
+ | |U|U|M| | |o
+ | |S|L|A|N|N|t
+ | |T|D|Y|O|O|t
+FEATURE |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
+-------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+Fix Sorcerer's Apprentice Syndrome |4.2.3.1 |x| | | | |
+Transfer modes: | | | | | | |
+ netascii |RFC-783 |x| | | | |
+ octet |RFC-783 |x| | | | |
+ mail |4.2.2.1 | | | |x| |
+ extensions |4.2.3.3 | | |x| | |
+Use adaptive timeout |4.2.3.2 |x| | | | |
+Configurable access control |4.2.3.4 | |x| | | |
+Silently ignore broadcast request |4.2.3.5 | |x| | | |
+-------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+-------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 47]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+5. ELECTRONIC MAIL -- SMTP and RFC-822
+
+ 5.1 INTRODUCTION
+
+ In the TCP/IP protocol suite, electronic mail in a format
+ specified in RFC-822 [SMTP:2] is transmitted using the Simple Mail
+ Transfer Protocol (SMTP) defined in RFC-821 [SMTP:1].
+
+ While SMTP has remained unchanged over the years, the Internet
+ community has made several changes in the way SMTP is used. In
+ particular, the conversion to the Domain Name System (DNS) has
+ caused changes in address formats and in mail routing. In this
+ section, we assume familiarity with the concepts and terminology
+ of the DNS, whose requirements are given in Section 6.1.
+
+ RFC-822 specifies the Internet standard format for electronic mail
+ messages. RFC-822 supercedes an older standard, RFC-733, that may
+ still be in use in a few places, although it is obsolete. The two
+ formats are sometimes referred to simply by number ("822" and
+ "733").
+
+ RFC-822 is used in some non-Internet mail environments with
+ different mail transfer protocols than SMTP, and SMTP has also
+ been adapted for use in some non-Internet environments. Note that
+ this document presents the rules for the use of SMTP and RFC-822
+ for the Internet environment only; other mail environments that
+ use these protocols may be expected to have their own rules.
+
+ 5.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH
+
+ This section covers both RFC-821 and RFC-822.
+
+ The SMTP specification in RFC-821 is clear and contains numerous
+ examples, so implementors should not find it difficult to
+ understand. This section simply updates or annotates portions of
+ RFC-821 to conform with current usage.
+
+ RFC-822 is a long and dense document, defining a rich syntax.
+ Unfortunately, incomplete or defective implementations of RFC-822
+ are common. In fact, nearly all of the many formats of RFC-822
+ are actually used, so an implementation generally needs to
+ recognize and correctly interpret all of the RFC-822 syntax.
+
+ 5.2.1 The SMTP Model: RFC-821 Section 2
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Mail is sent by a series of request/response transactions
+ between a client, the "sender-SMTP," and a server, the
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 48]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ "receiver-SMTP". These transactions pass (1) the message
+ proper, which is composed of header and body, and (2) SMTP
+ source and destination addresses, referred to as the
+ "envelope".
+
+ The SMTP programs are analogous to Message Transfer Agents
+ (MTAs) of X.400. There will be another level of protocol
+ software, closer to the end user, that is responsible for
+ composing and analyzing RFC-822 message headers; this
+ component is known as the "User Agent" in X.400, and we
+ use that term in this document. There is a clear logical
+ distinction between the User Agent and the SMTP
+ implementation, since they operate on different levels of
+ protocol. Note, however, that this distinction is may not
+ be exactly reflected the structure of typical
+ implementations of Internet mail. Often there is a
+ program known as the "mailer" that implements SMTP and
+ also some of the User Agent functions; the rest of the
+ User Agent functions are included in a user interface used
+ for entering and reading mail.
+
+ The SMTP envelope is constructed at the originating site,
+ typically by the User Agent when the message is first
+ queued for the Sender-SMTP program. The envelope
+ addresses may be derived from information in the message
+ header, supplied by the user interface (e.g., to implement
+ a bcc: request), or derived from local configuration
+ information (e.g., expansion of a mailing list). The SMTP
+ envelope cannot in general be re-derived from the header
+ at a later stage in message delivery, so the envelope is
+ transmitted separately from the message itself using the
+ MAIL and RCPT commands of SMTP.
+
+ The text of RFC-821 suggests that mail is to be delivered
+ to an individual user at a host. With the advent of the
+ domain system and of mail routing using mail-exchange (MX)
+ resource records, implementors should now think of
+ delivering mail to a user at a domain, which may or may
+ not be a particular host. This DOES NOT change the fact
+ that SMTP is a host-to-host mail exchange protocol.
+
+ 5.2.2 Canonicalization: RFC-821 Section 3.1
+
+ The domain names that a Sender-SMTP sends in MAIL and RCPT
+ commands MUST have been "canonicalized," i.e., they must be
+ fully-qualified principal names or domain literals, not
+ nicknames or domain abbreviations. A canonicalized name either
+ identifies a host directly or is an MX name; it cannot be a
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 49]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ CNAME.
+
+ 5.2.3 VRFY and EXPN Commands: RFC-821 Section 3.3
+
+ A receiver-SMTP MUST implement VRFY and SHOULD implement EXPN
+ (this requirement overrides RFC-821). However, there MAY be
+ configuration information to disable VRFY and EXPN in a
+ particular installation; this might even allow EXPN to be
+ disabled for selected lists.
+
+ A new reply code is defined for the VRFY command:
+
+ 252 Cannot VRFY user (e.g., info is not local), but will
+ take message for this user and attempt delivery.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ SMTP users and administrators make regular use of these
+ commands for diagnosing mail delivery problems. With the
+ increasing use of multi-level mailing list expansion
+ (sometimes more than two levels), EXPN has been
+ increasingly important for diagnosing inadvertent mail
+ loops. On the other hand, some feel that EXPN represents
+ a significant privacy, and perhaps even a security,
+ exposure.
+
+ 5.2.4 SEND, SOML, and SAML Commands: RFC-821 Section 3.4
+
+ An SMTP MAY implement the commands to send a message to a
+ user's terminal: SEND, SOML, and SAML.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ It has been suggested that the use of mail relaying
+ through an MX record is inconsistent with the intent of
+ SEND to deliver a message immediately and directly to a
+ user's terminal. However, an SMTP receiver that is unable
+ to write directly to the user terminal can return a "251
+ User Not Local" reply to the RCPT following a SEND, to
+ inform the originator of possibly deferred delivery.
+
+ 5.2.5 HELO Command: RFC-821 Section 3.5
+
+ The sender-SMTP MUST ensure that the <domain> parameter in a
+ HELO command is a valid principal host domain name for the
+ client host. As a result, the receiver-SMTP will not have to
+ perform MX resolution on this name in order to validate the
+ HELO parameter.
+
+ The HELO receiver MAY verify that the HELO parameter really
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 50]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ corresponds to the IP address of the sender. However, the
+ receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if the
+ sender's HELO command fails verification.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Verifying the HELO parameter requires a domain name lookup
+ and may therefore take considerable time. An alternative
+ tool for tracking bogus mail sources is suggested below
+ (see "DATA Command").
+
+ Note also that the HELO argument is still required to have
+ valid <domain> syntax, since it will appear in a Received:
+ line; otherwise, a 501 error is to be sent.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ When HELO parameter validation fails, a suggested
+ procedure is to insert a note about the unknown
+ authenticity of the sender into the message header (e.g.,
+ in the "Received:" line).
+
+ 5.2.6 Mail Relay: RFC-821 Section 3.6
+
+ We distinguish three types of mail (store-and-) forwarding:
+
+ (1) A simple forwarder or "mail exchanger" forwards a message
+ using private knowledge about the recipient; see section
+ 3.2 of RFC-821.
+
+ (2) An SMTP mail "relay" forwards a message within an SMTP
+ mail environment as the result of an explicit source route
+ (as defined in section 3.6 of RFC-821). The SMTP relay
+ function uses the "@...:" form of source route from RFC-
+ 822 (see Section 5.2.19 below).
+
+ (3) A mail "gateway" passes a message between different
+ environments. The rules for mail gateways are discussed
+ below in Section 5.3.7.
+
+ An Internet host that is forwarding a message but is not a
+ gateway to a different mail environment (i.e., it falls under
+ (1) or (2)) SHOULD NOT alter any existing header fields,
+ although the host will add an appropriate Received: line as
+ required in Section 5.2.8.
+
+ A Sender-SMTP SHOULD NOT send a RCPT TO: command containing an
+ explicit source route using the "@...:" address form. Thus,
+ the relay function defined in section 3.6 of RFC-821 should
+ not be used.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 51]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The intent is to discourage all source routing and to
+ abolish explicit source routing for mail delivery within
+ the Internet environment. Source-routing is unnecessary;
+ the simple target address "user@domain" should always
+ suffice. This is the result of an explicit architectural
+ decision to use universal naming rather than source
+ routing for mail. Thus, SMTP provides end-to-end
+ connectivity, and the DNS provides globally-unique,
+ location-independent names. MX records handle the major
+ case where source routing might otherwise be needed.
+
+ A receiver-SMTP MUST accept the explicit source route syntax in
+ the envelope, but it MAY implement the relay function as
+ defined in section 3.6 of RFC-821. If it does not implement
+ the relay function, it SHOULD attempt to deliver the message
+ directly to the host to the right of the right-most "@" sign.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ For example, suppose a host that does not implement the
+ relay function receives a message with the SMTP command:
+ "RCPT TO:<@ALPHA,@BETA:joe@GAMMA>", where ALPHA, BETA, and
+ GAMMA represent domain names. Rather than immediately
+ refusing the message with a 550 error reply as suggested
+ on page 20 of RFC-821, the host should try to forward the
+ message to GAMMA directly, using: "RCPT TO:<joe@GAMMA>".
+ Since this host does not support relaying, it is not
+ required to update the reverse path.
+
+ Some have suggested that source routing may be needed
+ occasionally for manually routing mail around failures;
+ however, the reality and importance of this need is
+ controversial. The use of explicit SMTP mail relaying for
+ this purpose is discouraged, and in fact it may not be
+ successful, as many host systems do not support it. Some
+ have used the "%-hack" (see Section 5.2.16) for this
+ purpose.
+
+ 5.2.7 RCPT Command: RFC-821 Section 4.1.1
+
+ A host that supports a receiver-SMTP MUST support the reserved
+ mailbox "Postmaster".
+
+ The receiver-SMTP MAY verify RCPT parameters as they arrive;
+ however, RCPT responses MUST NOT be delayed beyond a reasonable
+ time (see Section 5.3.2).
+
+ Therefore, a "250 OK" response to a RCPT does not necessarily
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 52]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ imply that the delivery address(es) are valid. Errors found
+ after message acceptance will be reported by mailing a
+ notification message to an appropriate address (see Section
+ 5.3.3).
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The set of conditions under which a RCPT parameter can be
+ validated immediately is an engineering design choice.
+ Reporting destination mailbox errors to the Sender-SMTP
+ before mail is transferred is generally desirable to save
+ time and network bandwidth, but this advantage is lost if
+ RCPT verification is lengthy.
+
+ For example, the receiver can verify immediately any
+ simple local reference, such as a single locally-
+ registered mailbox. On the other hand, the "reasonable
+ time" limitation generally implies deferring verification
+ of a mailing list until after the message has been
+ transferred and accepted, since verifying a large mailing
+ list can take a very long time. An implementation might
+ or might not choose to defer validation of addresses that
+ are non-local and therefore require a DNS lookup. If a
+ DNS lookup is performed but a soft domain system error
+ (e.g., timeout) occurs, validity must be assumed.
+
+ 5.2.8 DATA Command: RFC-821 Section 4.1.1
+
+ Every receiver-SMTP (not just one that "accepts a message for
+ relaying or for final delivery" [SMTP:1]) MUST insert a
+ "Received:" line at the beginning of a message. In this line,
+ called a "time stamp line" in RFC-821:
+
+ * The FROM field SHOULD contain both (1) the name of the
+ source host as presented in the HELO command and (2) a
+ domain literal containing the IP address of the source,
+ determined from the TCP connection.
+
+ * The ID field MAY contain an "@" as suggested in RFC-822,
+ but this is not required.
+
+ * The FOR field MAY contain a list of <path> entries when
+ multiple RCPT commands have been given.
+
+
+ An Internet mail program MUST NOT change a Received: line that
+ was previously added to the message header.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 53]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Including both the source host and the IP source address
+ in the Received: line may provide enough information for
+ tracking illicit mail sources and eliminate a need to
+ explicitly verify the HELO parameter.
+
+ Received: lines are primarily intended for humans tracing
+ mail routes, primarily of diagnosis of faults. See also
+ the discussion under 5.3.7.
+
+ When the receiver-SMTP makes "final delivery" of a message,
+ then it MUST pass the MAIL FROM: address from the SMTP envelope
+ with the message, for use if an error notification message must
+ be sent later (see Section 5.3.3). There is an analogous
+ requirement when gatewaying from the Internet into a different
+ mail environment; see Section 5.3.7.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Note that the final reply to the DATA command depends only
+ upon the successful transfer and storage of the message.
+ Any problem with the destination address(es) must either
+ (1) have been reported in an SMTP error reply to the RCPT
+ command(s), or (2) be reported in a later error message
+ mailed to the originator.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ The MAIL FROM: information may be passed as a parameter or
+ in a Return-Path: line inserted at the beginning of the
+ message.
+
+ 5.2.9 Command Syntax: RFC-821 Section 4.1.2
+
+ The syntax shown in RFC-821 for the MAIL FROM: command omits
+ the case of an empty path: "MAIL FROM: <>" (see RFC-821 Page
+ 15). An empty reverse path MUST be supported.
+
+ 5.2.10 SMTP Replies: RFC-821 Section 4.2
+
+ A receiver-SMTP SHOULD send only the reply codes listed in
+ section 4.2.2 of RFC-821 or in this document. A receiver-SMTP
+ SHOULD use the text shown in examples in RFC-821 whenever
+ appropriate.
+
+ A sender-SMTP MUST determine its actions only by the reply
+ code, not by the text (except for 251 and 551 replies); any
+ text, including no text at all, must be acceptable. The space
+ (blank) following the reply code is considered part of the
+ text. Whenever possible, a sender-SMTP SHOULD test only the
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 54]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ first digit of the reply code, as specified in Appendix E of
+ RFC-821.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Interoperability problems have arisen with SMTP systems
+ using reply codes that are not listed explicitly in RFC-
+ 821 Section 4.3 but are legal according to the theory of
+ reply codes explained in Appendix E.
+
+ 5.2.11 Transparency: RFC-821 Section 4.5.2
+
+ Implementors MUST be sure that their mail systems always add
+ and delete periods to ensure message transparency.
+
+ 5.2.12 WKS Use in MX Processing: RFC-974, p. 5
+
+ RFC-974 [SMTP:3] recommended that the domain system be queried
+ for WKS ("Well-Known Service") records, to verify that each
+ proposed mail target does support SMTP. Later experience has
+ shown that WKS is not widely supported, so the WKS step in MX
+ processing SHOULD NOT be used.
+
+ The following are notes on RFC-822, organized by section of that
+ document.
+
+ 5.2.13 RFC-822 Message Specification: RFC-822 Section 4
+
+ The syntax shown for the Return-path line omits the possibility
+ of a null return path, which is used to prevent looping of
+ error notifications (see Section 5.3.3). The complete syntax
+ is:
+
+ return = "Return-path" ":" route-addr
+ / "Return-path" ":" "<" ">"
+
+ The set of optional header fields is hereby expanded to include
+ the Content-Type field defined in RFC-1049 [SMTP:7]. This
+ field "allows mail reading systems to automatically identify
+ the type of a structured message body and to process it for
+ display accordingly". [SMTP:7] A User Agent MAY support this
+ field.
+
+ 5.2.14 RFC-822 Date and Time Specification: RFC-822 Section 5
+
+ The syntax for the date is hereby changed to:
+
+ date = 1*2DIGIT month 2*4DIGIT
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 55]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ All mail software SHOULD use 4-digit years in dates, to ease
+ the transition to the next century.
+
+ There is a strong trend towards the use of numeric timezone
+ indicators, and implementations SHOULD use numeric timezones
+ instead of timezone names. However, all implementations MUST
+ accept either notation. If timezone names are used, they MUST
+ be exactly as defined in RFC-822.
+
+ The military time zones are specified incorrectly in RFC-822:
+ they count the wrong way from UT (the signs are reversed). As
+ a result, military time zones in RFC-822 headers carry no
+ information.
+
+ Finally, note that there is a typo in the definition of "zone"
+ in the syntax summary of appendix D; the correct definition
+ occurs in Section 3 of RFC-822.
+
+ 5.2.15 RFC-822 Syntax Change: RFC-822 Section 6.1
+
+ The syntactic definition of "mailbox" in RFC-822 is hereby
+ changed to:
+
+ mailbox = addr-spec ; simple address
+ / [phrase] route-addr ; name & addr-spec
+
+ That is, the phrase preceding a route address is now OPTIONAL.
+ This change makes the following header field legal, for
+ example:
+
+ From: <craig@nnsc.nsf.net>
+
+ 5.2.16 RFC-822 Local-part: RFC-822 Section 6.2
+
+ The basic mailbox address specification has the form: "local-
+ part@domain". Here "local-part", sometimes called the "left-
+ hand side" of the address, is domain-dependent.
+
+ A host that is forwarding the message but is not the
+ destination host implied by the right-hand side "domain" MUST
+ NOT interpret or modify the "local-part" of the address.
+
+ When mail is to be gatewayed from the Internet mail environment
+ into a foreign mail environment (see Section 5.3.7), routing
+ information for that foreign environment MAY be embedded within
+ the "local-part" of the address. The gateway will then
+ interpret this local part appropriately for the foreign mail
+ environment.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 56]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Although source routes are discouraged within the Internet
+ (see Section 5.2.6), there are non-Internet mail
+ environments whose delivery mechanisms do depend upon
+ source routes. Source routes for extra-Internet
+ environments can generally be buried in the "local-part"
+ of the address (see Section 5.2.16) while mail traverses
+ the Internet. When the mail reaches the appropriate
+ Internet mail gateway, the gateway will interpret the
+ local-part and build the necessary address or route for
+ the target mail environment.
+
+ For example, an Internet host might send mail to:
+ "a!b!c!user@gateway-domain". The complex local part
+ "a!b!c!user" would be uninterpreted within the Internet
+ domain, but could be parsed and understood by the
+ specified mail gateway.
+
+ An embedded source route is sometimes encoded in the
+ "local-part" using "%" as a right-binding routing
+ operator. For example, in:
+
+ user%domain%relay3%relay2@relay1
+
+ the "%" convention implies that the mail is to be routed
+ from "relay1" through "relay2", "relay3", and finally to
+ "user" at "domain". This is commonly known as the "%-
+ hack". It is suggested that "%" have lower precedence
+ than any other routing operator (e.g., "!") hidden in the
+ local-part; for example, "a!b%c" would be interpreted as
+ "(a!b)%c".
+
+ Only the target host (in this case, "relay1") is permitted
+ to analyze the local-part "user%domain%relay3%relay2".
+
+ 5.2.17 Domain Literals: RFC-822 Section 6.2.3
+
+ A mailer MUST be able to accept and parse an Internet domain
+ literal whose content ("dtext"; see RFC-822) is a dotted-
+ decimal host address. This satisfies the requirement of
+ Section 2.1 for the case of mail.
+
+ An SMTP MUST accept and recognize a domain literal for any of
+ its own IP addresses.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 57]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ 5.2.18 Common Address Formatting Errors: RFC-822 Section 6.1
+
+ Errors in formatting or parsing 822 addresses are unfortunately
+ common. This section mentions only the most common errors. A
+ User Agent MUST accept all valid RFC-822 address formats, and
+ MUST NOT generate illegal address syntax.
+
+ o A common error is to leave out the semicolon after a group
+ identifier.
+
+ o Some systems fail to fully-qualify domain names in
+ messages they generate. The right-hand side of an "@"
+ sign in a header address field MUST be a fully-qualified
+ domain name.
+
+ For example, some systems fail to fully-qualify the From:
+ address; this prevents a "reply" command in the user
+ interface from automatically constructing a return
+ address.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Although RFC-822 allows the local use of abbreviated
+ domain names within a domain, the application of
+ RFC-822 in Internet mail does not allow this. The
+ intent is that an Internet host must not send an SMTP
+ message header containing an abbreviated domain name
+ in an address field. This allows the address fields
+ of the header to be passed without alteration across
+ the Internet, as required in Section 5.2.6.
+
+ o Some systems mis-parse multiple-hop explicit source routes
+ such as:
+
+ @relay1,@relay2,@relay3:user@domain.
+
+
+ o Some systems over-qualify domain names by adding a
+ trailing dot to some or all domain names in addresses or
+ message-ids. This violates RFC-822 syntax.
+
+
+ 5.2.19 Explicit Source Routes: RFC-822 Section 6.2.7
+
+ Internet host software SHOULD NOT create an RFC-822 header
+ containing an address with an explicit source route, but MUST
+ accept such headers for compatibility with earlier systems.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 58]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ In an understatement, RFC-822 says "The use of explicit
+ source routing is discouraged". Many hosts implemented
+ RFC-822 source routes incorrectly, so the syntax cannot be
+ used unambiguously in practice. Many users feel the
+ syntax is ugly. Explicit source routes are not needed in
+ the mail envelope for delivery; see Section 5.2.6. For
+ all these reasons, explicit source routes using the RFC-
+ 822 notations are not to be used in Internet mail headers.
+
+ As stated in Section 5.2.16, it is necessary to allow an
+ explicit source route to be buried in the local-part of an
+ address, e.g., using the "%-hack", in order to allow mail
+ to be gatewayed into another environment in which explicit
+ source routing is necessary. The vigilant will observe
+ that there is no way for a User Agent to detect and
+ prevent the use of such implicit source routing when the
+ destination is within the Internet. We can only
+ discourage source routing of any kind within the Internet,
+ as unnecessary and undesirable.
+
+ 5.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
+
+ 5.3.1 SMTP Queueing Strategies
+
+ The common structure of a host SMTP implementation includes
+ user mailboxes, one or more areas for queueing messages in
+ transit, and one or more daemon processes for sending and
+ receiving mail. The exact structure will vary depending on the
+ needs of the users on the host and the number and size of
+ mailing lists supported by the host. We describe several
+ optimizations that have proved helpful, particularly for
+ mailers supporting high traffic levels.
+
+ Any queueing strategy MUST include:
+
+ o Timeouts on all activities. See Section 5.3.2.
+
+ o Never sending error messages in response to error
+ messages.
+
+
+ 5.3.1.1 Sending Strategy
+
+ The general model of a sender-SMTP is one or more processes
+ that periodically attempt to transmit outgoing mail. In a
+ typical system, the program that composes a message has some
+ method for requesting immediate attention for a new piece of
+ outgoing mail, while mail that cannot be transmitted
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 59]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ immediately MUST be queued and periodically retried by the
+ sender. A mail queue entry will include not only the
+ message itself but also the envelope information.
+
+ The sender MUST delay retrying a particular destination
+ after one attempt has failed. In general, the retry
+ interval SHOULD be at least 30 minutes; however, more
+ sophisticated and variable strategies will be beneficial
+ when the sender-SMTP can determine the reason for non-
+ delivery.
+
+ Retries continue until the message is transmitted or the
+ sender gives up; the give-up time generally needs to be at
+ least 4-5 days. The parameters to the retry algorithm MUST
+ be configurable.
+
+ A sender SHOULD keep a list of hosts it cannot reach and
+ corresponding timeouts, rather than just retrying queued
+ mail items.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Experience suggests that failures are typically
+ transient (the target system has crashed), favoring a
+ policy of two connection attempts in the first hour the
+ message is in the queue, and then backing off to once
+ every two or three hours.
+
+ The sender-SMTP can shorten the queueing delay by
+ cooperation with the receiver-SMTP. In particular, if
+ mail is received from a particular address, it is good
+ evidence that any mail queued for that host can now be
+ sent.
+
+ The strategy may be further modified as a result of
+ multiple addresses per host (see Section 5.3.4), to
+ optimize delivery time vs. resource usage.
+
+ A sender-SMTP may have a large queue of messages for
+ each unavailable destination host, and if it retried
+ all these messages in every retry cycle, there would be
+ excessive Internet overhead and the daemon would be
+ blocked for a long period. Note that an SMTP can
+ generally determine that a delivery attempt has failed
+ only after a timeout of a minute or more; a one minute
+ timeout per connection will result in a very large
+ delay if it is repeated for dozens or even hundreds of
+ queued messages.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 60]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ When the same message is to be delivered to several users on
+ the same host, only one copy of the message SHOULD be
+ transmitted. That is, the sender-SMTP should use the
+ command sequence: RCPT, RCPT,... RCPT, DATA instead of the
+ sequence: RCPT, DATA, RCPT, DATA,... RCPT, DATA.
+ Implementation of this efficiency feature is strongly urged.
+
+ Similarly, the sender-SMTP MAY support multiple concurrent
+ outgoing mail transactions to achieve timely delivery.
+ However, some limit SHOULD be imposed to protect the host
+ from devoting all its resources to mail.
+
+ The use of the different addresses of a multihomed host is
+ discussed below.
+
+ 5.3.1.2 Receiving strategy
+
+ The receiver-SMTP SHOULD attempt to keep a pending listen on
+ the SMTP port at all times. This will require the support
+ of multiple incoming TCP connections for SMTP. Some limit
+ MAY be imposed.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ When the receiver-SMTP receives mail from a particular
+ host address, it could notify the sender-SMTP to retry
+ any mail pending for that host address.
+
+ 5.3.2 Timeouts in SMTP
+
+ There are two approaches to timeouts in the sender-SMTP: (a)
+ limit the time for each SMTP command separately, or (b) limit
+ the time for the entire SMTP dialogue for a single mail
+ message. A sender-SMTP SHOULD use option (a), per-command
+ timeouts. Timeouts SHOULD be easily reconfigurable, preferably
+ without recompiling the SMTP code.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Timeouts are an essential feature of an SMTP
+ implementation. If the timeouts are too long (or worse,
+ there are no timeouts), Internet communication failures or
+ software bugs in receiver-SMTP programs can tie up SMTP
+ processes indefinitely. If the timeouts are too short,
+ resources will be wasted with attempts that time out part
+ way through message delivery.
+
+ If option (b) is used, the timeout has to be very large,
+ e.g., an hour, to allow time to expand very large mailing
+ lists. The timeout may also need to increase linearly
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 61]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ with the size of the message, to account for the time to
+ transmit a very large message. A large fixed timeout
+ leads to two problems: a failure can still tie up the
+ sender for a very long time, and very large messages may
+ still spuriously time out (which is a wasteful failure!).
+
+ Using the recommended option (a), a timer is set for each
+ SMTP command and for each buffer of the data transfer.
+ The latter means that the overall timeout is inherently
+ proportional to the size of the message.
+
+ Based on extensive experience with busy mail-relay hosts, the
+ minimum per-command timeout values SHOULD be as follows:
+
+ o Initial 220 Message: 5 minutes
+
+ A Sender-SMTP process needs to distinguish between a
+ failed TCP connection and a delay in receiving the initial
+ 220 greeting message. Many receiver-SMTPs will accept a
+ TCP connection but delay delivery of the 220 message until
+ their system load will permit more mail to be processed.
+
+ o MAIL Command: 5 minutes
+
+
+ o RCPT Command: 5 minutes
+
+ A longer timeout would be required if processing of
+ mailing lists and aliases were not deferred until after
+ the message was accepted.
+
+ o DATA Initiation: 2 minutes
+
+ This is while awaiting the "354 Start Input" reply to a
+ DATA command.
+
+ o Data Block: 3 minutes
+
+ This is while awaiting the completion of each TCP SEND
+ call transmitting a chunk of data.
+
+ o DATA Termination: 10 minutes.
+
+ This is while awaiting the "250 OK" reply. When the
+ receiver gets the final period terminating the message
+ data, it typically performs processing to deliver the
+ message to a user mailbox. A spurious timeout at this
+ point would be very wasteful, since the message has been
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 62]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ successfully sent.
+
+ A receiver-SMTP SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes
+ while it is awaiting the next command from the sender.
+
+ 5.3.3 Reliable Mail Receipt
+
+ When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a
+ "250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting
+ responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must
+ take this responsibility seriously, i.e., it MUST NOT lose the
+ message for frivolous reasons, e.g., because the host later
+ crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage.
+
+ If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message,
+ the receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification
+ message. This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>")
+ reverse path in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821. The
+ recipient of this notification SHOULD be the address from the
+ envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line). However, if
+ this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a
+ notification. If the address is an explicit source route, it
+ SHOULD be stripped down to its final hop.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ For example, suppose that an error notification must be
+ sent for a message that arrived with:
+ "MAIL FROM:<@a,@b:user@d>". The notification message
+ should be sent to: "RCPT TO:<user@d>".
+
+ Some delivery failures after the message is accepted by
+ SMTP will be unavoidable. For example, it may be
+ impossible for the receiver-SMTP to validate all the
+ delivery addresses in RCPT command(s) due to a "soft"
+ domain system error or because the target is a mailing
+ list (see earlier discussion of RCPT).
+
+ To avoid receiving duplicate messages as the result of
+ timeouts, a receiver-SMTP MUST seek to minimize the time
+ required to respond to the final "." that ends a message
+ transfer. See RFC-1047 [SMTP:4] for a discussion of this
+ problem.
+
+ 5.3.4 Reliable Mail Transmission
+
+ To transmit a message, a sender-SMTP determines the IP address
+ of the target host from the destination address in the
+ envelope. Specifically, it maps the string to the right of the
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 63]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ "@" sign into an IP address. This mapping or the transfer
+ itself may fail with a soft error, in which case the sender-
+ SMTP will requeue the outgoing mail for a later retry, as
+ required in Section 5.3.1.1.
+
+ When it succeeds, the mapping can result in a list of
+ alternative delivery addresses rather than a single address,
+ because of (a) multiple MX records, (b) multihoming, or both.
+ To provide reliable mail transmission, the sender-SMTP MUST be
+ able to try (and retry) each of the addresses in this list in
+ order, until a delivery attempt succeeds. However, there MAY
+ also be a configurable limit on the number of alternate
+ addresses that can be tried. In any case, a host SHOULD try at
+ least two addresses.
+
+ The following information is to be used to rank the host
+ addresses:
+
+ (1) Multiple MX Records -- these contain a preference
+ indication that should be used in sorting. If there are
+ multiple destinations with the same preference and there
+ is no clear reason to favor one (e.g., by address
+ preference), then the sender-SMTP SHOULD pick one at
+ random to spread the load across multiple mail exchanges
+ for a specific organization; note that this is a
+ refinement of the procedure in [DNS:3].
+
+ (2) Multihomed host -- The destination host (perhaps taken
+ from the preferred MX record) may be multihomed, in which
+ case the domain name resolver will return a list of
+ alternative IP addresses. It is the responsibility of the
+ domain name resolver interface (see Section 6.1.3.4 below)
+ to have ordered this list by decreasing preference, and
+ SMTP MUST try them in the order presented.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Although the capability to try multiple alternative
+ addresses is required, there may be circumstances where
+ specific installations want to limit or disable the use of
+ alternative addresses. The question of whether a sender
+ should attempt retries using the different addresses of a
+ multihomed host has been controversial. The main argument
+ for using the multiple addresses is that it maximizes the
+ probability of timely delivery, and indeed sometimes the
+ probability of any delivery; the counter argument is that
+ it may result in unnecessary resource use.
+
+ Note that resource use is also strongly determined by the
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 64]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ sending strategy discussed in Section 5.3.1.
+
+ 5.3.5 Domain Name Support
+
+ SMTP implementations MUST use the mechanism defined in Section
+ 6.1 for mapping between domain names and IP addresses. This
+ means that every Internet SMTP MUST include support for the
+ Internet DNS.
+
+ In particular, a sender-SMTP MUST support the MX record scheme
+ [SMTP:3]. See also Section 7.4 of [DNS:2] for information on
+ domain name support for SMTP.
+
+ 5.3.6 Mailing Lists and Aliases
+
+ An SMTP-capable host SHOULD support both the alias and the list
+ form of address expansion for multiple delivery. When a
+ message is delivered or forwarded to each address of an
+ expanded list form, the return address in the envelope
+ ("MAIL FROM:") MUST be changed to be the address of a person
+ who administers the list, but the message header MUST be left
+ unchanged; in particular, the "From" field of the message is
+ unaffected.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ An important mail facility is a mechanism for multi-
+ destination delivery of a single message, by transforming
+ or "expanding" a pseudo-mailbox address into a list of
+ destination mailbox addresses. When a message is sent to
+ such a pseudo-mailbox (sometimes called an "exploder"),
+ copies are forwarded or redistributed to each mailbox in
+ the expanded list. We classify such a pseudo-mailbox as
+ an "alias" or a "list", depending upon the expansion
+ rules:
+
+ (a) Alias
+
+ To expand an alias, the recipient mailer simply
+ replaces the pseudo-mailbox address in the envelope
+ with each of the expanded addresses in turn; the rest
+ of the envelope and the message body are left
+ unchanged. The message is then delivered or
+ forwarded to each expanded address.
+
+ (b) List
+
+ A mailing list may be said to operate by
+ "redistribution" rather than by "forwarding". To
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 65]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ expand a list, the recipient mailer replaces the
+ pseudo-mailbox address in the envelope with each of
+ the expanded addresses in turn. The return address in
+ the envelope is changed so that all error messages
+ generated by the final deliveries will be returned to
+ a list administrator, not to the message originator,
+ who generally has no control over the contents of the
+ list and will typically find error messages annoying.
+
+
+ 5.3.7 Mail Gatewaying
+
+ Gatewaying mail between different mail environments, i.e.,
+ different mail formats and protocols, is complex and does not
+ easily yield to standardization. See for example [SMTP:5a],
+ [SMTP:5b]. However, some general requirements may be given for
+ a gateway between the Internet and another mail environment.
+
+ (A) Header fields MAY be rewritten when necessary as messages
+ are gatewayed across mail environment boundaries.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ This may involve interpreting the local-part of the
+ destination address, as suggested in Section 5.2.16.
+
+ The other mail systems gatewayed to the Internet
+ generally use a subset of RFC-822 headers, but some
+ of them do not have an equivalent to the SMTP
+ envelope. Therefore, when a message leaves the
+ Internet environment, it may be necessary to fold the
+ SMTP envelope information into the message header. A
+ possible solution would be to create new header
+ fields to carry the envelope information (e.g., "X-
+ SMTP-MAIL:" and "X-SMTP-RCPT:"); however, this would
+ require changes in mail programs in the foreign
+ environment.
+
+ (B) When forwarding a message into or out of the Internet
+ environment, a gateway MUST prepend a Received: line, but
+ it MUST NOT alter in any way a Received: line that is
+ already in the header.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ This requirement is a subset of the general
+ "Received:" line requirement of Section 5.2.8; it is
+ restated here for emphasis.
+
+ Received: fields of messages originating from other
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 66]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ environments may not conform exactly to RFC822.
+ However, the most important use of Received: lines is
+ for debugging mail faults, and this debugging can be
+ severely hampered by well-meaning gateways that try
+ to "fix" a Received: line.
+
+ The gateway is strongly encouraged to indicate the
+ environment and protocol in the "via" clauses of
+ Received field(s) that it supplies.
+
+ (C) From the Internet side, the gateway SHOULD accept all
+ valid address formats in SMTP commands and in RFC-822
+ headers, and all valid RFC-822 messages. Although a
+ gateway must accept an RFC-822 explicit source route
+ ("@...:" format) in either the RFC-822 header or in the
+ envelope, it MAY or may not act on the source route; see
+ Sections 5.2.6 and 5.2.19.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ It is often tempting to restrict the range of
+ addresses accepted at the mail gateway to simplify
+ the translation into addresses for the remote
+ environment. This practice is based on the
+ assumption that mail users have control over the
+ addresses their mailers send to the mail gateway. In
+ practice, however, users have little control over the
+ addresses that are finally sent; their mailers are
+ free to change addresses into any legal RFC-822
+ format.
+
+ (D) The gateway MUST ensure that all header fields of a
+ message that it forwards into the Internet meet the
+ requirements for Internet mail. In particular, all
+ addresses in "From:", "To:", "Cc:", etc., fields must be
+ transformed (if necessary) to satisfy RFC-822 syntax, and
+ they must be effective and useful for sending replies.
+
+
+ (E) The translation algorithm used to convert mail from the
+ Internet protocols to another environment's protocol
+ SHOULD try to ensure that error messages from the foreign
+ mail environment are delivered to the return path from the
+ SMTP envelope, not to the sender listed in the "From:"
+ field of the RFC-822 message.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Internet mail lists usually place the address of the
+ mail list maintainer in the envelope but leave the
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 67]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ original message header intact (with the "From:"
+ field containing the original sender). This yields
+ the behavior the average recipient expects: a reply
+ to the header gets sent to the original sender, not
+ to a mail list maintainer; however, errors get sent
+ to the maintainer (who can fix the problem) and not
+ the sender (who probably cannot).
+
+ (F) Similarly, when forwarding a message from another
+ environment into the Internet, the gateway SHOULD set the
+ envelope return path in accordance with an error message
+ return address, if any, supplied by the foreign
+ environment.
+
+
+ 5.3.8 Maximum Message Size
+
+ Mailer software MUST be able to send and receive messages of at
+ least 64K bytes in length (including header), and a much larger
+ maximum size is highly desirable.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Although SMTP does not define the maximum size of a
+ message, many systems impose implementation limits.
+
+ The current de facto minimum limit in the Internet is 64K
+ bytes. However, electronic mail is used for a variety of
+ purposes that create much larger messages. For example,
+ mail is often used instead of FTP for transmitting ASCII
+ files, and in particular to transmit entire documents. As
+ a result, messages can be 1 megabyte or even larger. We
+ note that the present document together with its lower-
+ layer companion contains 0.5 megabytes.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 68]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ 5.4 SMTP REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
+
+ | | | | |S| |
+ | | | | |H| |F
+ | | | | |O|M|o
+ | | |S| |U|U|o
+ | | |H| |L|S|t
+ | |M|O| |D|T|n
+ | |U|U|M| | |o
+ | |S|L|A|N|N|t
+ | |T|D|Y|O|O|t
+FEATURE |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
+-----------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+ | | | | | | |
+RECEIVER-SMTP: | | | | | | |
+ Implement VRFY |5.2.3 |x| | | | |
+ Implement EXPN |5.2.3 | |x| | | |
+ EXPN, VRFY configurable |5.2.3 | | |x| | |
+ Implement SEND, SOML, SAML |5.2.4 | | |x| | |
+ Verify HELO parameter |5.2.5 | | |x| | |
+ Refuse message with bad HELO |5.2.5 | | | | |x|
+ Accept explicit src-route syntax in env. |5.2.6 |x| | | | |
+ Support "postmaster" |5.2.7 |x| | | | |
+ Process RCPT when received (except lists) |5.2.7 | | |x| | |
+ Long delay of RCPT responses |5.2.7 | | | | |x|
+ | | | | | | |
+ Add Received: line |5.2.8 |x| | | | |
+ Received: line include domain literal |5.2.8 | |x| | | |
+ Change previous Received: line |5.2.8 | | | | |x|
+ Pass Return-Path info (final deliv/gwy) |5.2.8 |x| | | | |
+ Support empty reverse path |5.2.9 |x| | | | |
+ Send only official reply codes |5.2.10 | |x| | | |
+ Send text from RFC-821 when appropriate |5.2.10 | |x| | | |
+ Delete "." for transparency |5.2.11 |x| | | | |
+ Accept and recognize self domain literal(s) |5.2.17 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+ Error message about error message |5.3.1 | | | | |x|
+ Keep pending listen on SMTP port |5.3.1.2 | |x| | | |
+ Provide limit on recv concurrency |5.3.1.2 | | |x| | |
+ Wait at least 5 mins for next sender cmd |5.3.2 | |x| | | |
+ Avoidable delivery failure after "250 OK" |5.3.3 | | | | |x|
+ Send error notification msg after accept |5.3.3 |x| | | | |
+ Send using null return path |5.3.3 |x| | | | |
+ Send to envelope return path |5.3.3 | |x| | | |
+ Send to null address |5.3.3 | | | | |x|
+ Strip off explicit src route |5.3.3 | |x| | | |
+ Minimize acceptance delay (RFC-1047) |5.3.3 |x| | | | |
+-----------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 69]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ | | | | | | |
+SENDER-SMTP: | | | | | | |
+ Canonicalized domain names in MAIL, RCPT |5.2.2 |x| | | | |
+ Implement SEND, SOML, SAML |5.2.4 | | |x| | |
+ Send valid principal host name in HELO |5.2.5 |x| | | | |
+ Send explicit source route in RCPT TO: |5.2.6 | | | |x| |
+ Use only reply code to determine action |5.2.10 |x| | | | |
+ Use only high digit of reply code when poss. |5.2.10 | |x| | | |
+ Add "." for transparency |5.2.11 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+ Retry messages after soft failure |5.3.1.1 |x| | | | |
+ Delay before retry |5.3.1.1 |x| | | | |
+ Configurable retry parameters |5.3.1.1 |x| | | | |
+ Retry once per each queued dest host |5.3.1.1 | |x| | | |
+ Multiple RCPT's for same DATA |5.3.1.1 | |x| | | |
+ Support multiple concurrent transactions |5.3.1.1 | | |x| | |
+ Provide limit on concurrency |5.3.1.1 | |x| | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+ Timeouts on all activities |5.3.1 |x| | | | |
+ Per-command timeouts |5.3.2 | |x| | | |
+ Timeouts easily reconfigurable |5.3.2 | |x| | | |
+ Recommended times |5.3.2 | |x| | | |
+ Try alternate addr's in order |5.3.4 |x| | | | |
+ Configurable limit on alternate tries |5.3.4 | | |x| | |
+ Try at least two alternates |5.3.4 | |x| | | |
+ Load-split across equal MX alternates |5.3.4 | |x| | | |
+ Use the Domain Name System |5.3.5 |x| | | | |
+ Support MX records |5.3.5 |x| | | | |
+ Use WKS records in MX processing |5.2.12 | | | |x| |
+-----------------------------------------------|----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+ | | | | | | |
+MAIL FORWARDING: | | | | | | |
+ Alter existing header field(s) |5.2.6 | | | |x| |
+ Implement relay function: 821/section 3.6 |5.2.6 | | |x| | |
+ If not, deliver to RHS domain |5.2.6 | |x| | | |
+ Interpret 'local-part' of addr |5.2.16 | | | | |x|
+ | | | | | | |
+MAILING LISTS AND ALIASES | | | | | | |
+ Support both |5.3.6 | |x| | | |
+ Report mail list error to local admin. |5.3.6 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+MAIL GATEWAYS: | | | | | | |
+ Embed foreign mail route in local-part |5.2.16 | | |x| | |
+ Rewrite header fields when necessary |5.3.7 | | |x| | |
+ Prepend Received: line |5.3.7 |x| | | | |
+ Change existing Received: line |5.3.7 | | | | |x|
+ Accept full RFC-822 on Internet side |5.3.7 | |x| | | |
+ Act on RFC-822 explicit source route |5.3.7 | | |x| | |
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 70]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 MAIL -- SMTP & RFC-822 October 1989
+
+
+ Send only valid RFC-822 on Internet side |5.3.7 |x| | | | |
+ Deliver error msgs to envelope addr |5.3.7 | |x| | | |
+ Set env return path from err return addr |5.3.7 | |x| | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+USER AGENT -- RFC-822 | | | | | | |
+ Allow user to enter <route> address |5.2.6 | | | |x| |
+ Support RFC-1049 Content Type field |5.2.13 | | |x| | |
+ Use 4-digit years |5.2.14 | |x| | | |
+ Generate numeric timezones |5.2.14 | |x| | | |
+ Accept all timezones |5.2.14 |x| | | | |
+ Use non-num timezones from RFC-822 |5.2.14 |x| | | | |
+ Omit phrase before route-addr |5.2.15 | | |x| | |
+ Accept and parse dot.dec. domain literals |5.2.17 |x| | | | |
+ Accept all RFC-822 address formats |5.2.18 |x| | | | |
+ Generate invalid RFC-822 address format |5.2.18 | | | | |x|
+ Fully-qualified domain names in header |5.2.18 |x| | | | |
+ Create explicit src route in header |5.2.19 | | | |x| |
+ Accept explicit src route in header |5.2.19 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Send/recv at least 64KB messages |5.3.8 |x| | | | |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 71]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+6. SUPPORT SERVICES
+
+ 6.1 DOMAIN NAME TRANSLATION
+
+ 6.1.1 INTRODUCTION
+
+ Every host MUST implement a resolver for the Domain Name System
+ (DNS), and it MUST implement a mechanism using this DNS
+ resolver to convert host names to IP addresses and vice-versa
+ [DNS:1, DNS:2].
+
+ In addition to the DNS, a host MAY also implement a host name
+ translation mechanism that searches a local Internet host
+ table. See Section 6.1.3.8 for more information on this
+ option.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Internet host name translation was originally performed by
+ searching local copies of a table of all hosts. This
+ table became too large to update and distribute in a
+ timely manner and too large to fit into many hosts, so the
+ DNS was invented.
+
+ The DNS creates a distributed database used primarily for
+ the translation between host names and host addresses.
+ Implementation of DNS software is required. The DNS
+ consists of two logically distinct parts: name servers and
+ resolvers (although implementations often combine these
+ two logical parts in the interest of efficiency) [DNS:2].
+
+ Domain name servers store authoritative data about certain
+ sections of the database and answer queries about the
+ data. Domain resolvers query domain name servers for data
+ on behalf of user processes. Every host therefore needs a
+ DNS resolver; some host machines will also need to run
+ domain name servers. Since no name server has complete
+ information, in general it is necessary to obtain
+ information from more than one name server to resolve a
+ query.
+
+ 6.1.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH
+
+ An implementor must study references [DNS:1] and [DNS:2]
+ carefully. They provide a thorough description of the theory,
+ protocol, and implementation of the domain name system, and
+ reflect several years of experience.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 72]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ 6.1.2.1 Resource Records with Zero TTL: RFC-1035 Section 3.2.1
+
+ All DNS name servers and resolvers MUST properly handle RRs
+ with a zero TTL: return the RR to the client but do not
+ cache it.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Zero TTL values are interpreted to mean that the RR can
+ only be used for the transaction in progress, and
+ should not be cached; they are useful for extremely
+ volatile data.
+
+ 6.1.2.2 QCLASS Values: RFC-1035 Section 3.2.5
+
+ A query with "QCLASS=*" SHOULD NOT be used unless the
+ requestor is seeking data from more than one class. In
+ particular, if the requestor is only interested in Internet
+ data types, QCLASS=IN MUST be used.
+
+ 6.1.2.3 Unused Fields: RFC-1035 Section 4.1.1
+
+ Unused fields in a query or response message MUST be zero.
+
+ 6.1.2.4 Compression: RFC-1035 Section 4.1.4
+
+ Name servers MUST use compression in responses.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Compression is essential to avoid overflowing UDP
+ datagrams; see Section 6.1.3.2.
+
+ 6.1.2.5 Misusing Configuration Info: RFC-1035 Section 6.1.2
+
+ Recursive name servers and full-service resolvers generally
+ have some configuration information containing hints about
+ the location of root or local name servers. An
+ implementation MUST NOT include any of these hints in a
+ response.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Many implementors have found it convenient to store
+ these hints as if they were cached data, but some
+ neglected to ensure that this "cached data" was not
+ included in responses. This has caused serious
+ problems in the Internet when the hints were obsolete
+ or incorrect.
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 73]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ 6.1.3 SPECIFIC ISSUES
+
+ 6.1.3.1 Resolver Implementation
+
+ A name resolver SHOULD be able to multiplex concurrent
+ requests if the host supports concurrent processes.
+
+ In implementing a DNS resolver, one of two different models
+ MAY optionally be chosen: a full-service resolver, or a stub
+ resolver.
+
+
+ (A) Full-Service Resolver
+
+ A full-service resolver is a complete implementation of
+ the resolver service, and is capable of dealing with
+ communication failures, failure of individual name
+ servers, location of the proper name server for a given
+ name, etc. It must satisfy the following requirements:
+
+ o The resolver MUST implement a local caching
+ function to avoid repeated remote access for
+ identical requests, and MUST time out information
+ in the cache.
+
+ o The resolver SHOULD be configurable with start-up
+ information pointing to multiple root name servers
+ and multiple name servers for the local domain.
+ This insures that the resolver will be able to
+ access the whole name space in normal cases, and
+ will be able to access local domain information
+ should the local network become disconnected from
+ the rest of the Internet.
+
+
+ (B) Stub Resolver
+
+ A "stub resolver" relies on the services of a recursive
+ name server on the connected network or a "nearby"
+ network. This scheme allows the host to pass on the
+ burden of the resolver function to a name server on
+ another host. This model is often essential for less
+ capable hosts, such as PCs, and is also recommended
+ when the host is one of several workstations on a local
+ network, because it allows all of the workstations to
+ share the cache of the recursive name server and hence
+ reduce the number of domain requests exported by the
+ local network.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 74]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ At a minimum, the stub resolver MUST be capable of
+ directing its requests to redundant recursive name
+ servers. Note that recursive name servers are allowed
+ to restrict the sources of requests that they will
+ honor, so the host administrator must verify that the
+ service will be provided. Stub resolvers MAY implement
+ caching if they choose, but if so, MUST timeout cached
+ information.
+
+
+ 6.1.3.2 Transport Protocols
+
+ DNS resolvers and recursive servers MUST support UDP, and
+ SHOULD support TCP, for sending (non-zone-transfer) queries.
+ Specifically, a DNS resolver or server that is sending a
+ non-zone-transfer query MUST send a UDP query first. If the
+ Answer section of the response is truncated and if the
+ requester supports TCP, it SHOULD try the query again using
+ TCP.
+
+ DNS servers MUST be able to service UDP queries and SHOULD
+ be able to service TCP queries. A name server MAY limit the
+ resources it devotes to TCP queries, but it SHOULD NOT
+ refuse to service a TCP query just because it would have
+ succeeded with UDP.
+
+ Truncated responses MUST NOT be saved (cached) and later
+ used in such a way that the fact that they are truncated is
+ lost.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ UDP is preferred over TCP for queries because UDP
+ queries have much lower overhead, both in packet count
+ and in connection state. The use of UDP is essential
+ for heavily-loaded servers, especially the root
+ servers. UDP also offers additional robustness, since
+ a resolver can attempt several UDP queries to different
+ servers for the cost of a single TCP query.
+
+ It is possible for a DNS response to be truncated,
+ although this is a very rare occurrence in the present
+ Internet DNS. Practically speaking, truncation cannot
+ be predicted, since it is data-dependent. The
+ dependencies include the number of RRs in the answer,
+ the size of each RR, and the savings in space realized
+ by the name compression algorithm. As a rule of thumb,
+ truncation in NS and MX lists should not occur for
+ answers containing 15 or fewer RRs.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 75]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ Whether it is possible to use a truncated answer
+ depends on the application. A mailer must not use a
+ truncated MX response, since this could lead to mail
+ loops.
+
+ Responsible practices can make UDP suffice in the vast
+ majority of cases. Name servers must use compression
+ in responses. Resolvers must differentiate truncation
+ of the Additional section of a response (which only
+ loses extra information) from truncation of the Answer
+ section (which for MX records renders the response
+ unusable by mailers). Database administrators should
+ list only a reasonable number of primary names in lists
+ of name servers, MX alternatives, etc.
+
+ However, it is also clear that some new DNS record
+ types defined in the future will contain information
+ exceeding the 512 byte limit that applies to UDP, and
+ hence will require TCP. Thus, resolvers and name
+ servers should implement TCP services as a backup to
+ UDP today, with the knowledge that they will require
+ the TCP service in the future.
+
+ By private agreement, name servers and resolvers MAY arrange
+ to use TCP for all traffic between themselves. TCP MUST be
+ used for zone transfers.
+
+ A DNS server MUST have sufficient internal concurrency that
+ it can continue to process UDP queries while awaiting a
+ response or performing a zone transfer on an open TCP
+ connection [DNS:2].
+
+ A server MAY support a UDP query that is delivered using an
+ IP broadcast or multicast address. However, the Recursion
+ Desired bit MUST NOT be set in a query that is multicast,
+ and MUST be ignored by name servers receiving queries via a
+ broadcast or multicast address. A host that sends broadcast
+ or multicast DNS queries SHOULD send them only as occasional
+ probes, caching the IP address(es) it obtains from the
+ response(s) so it can normally send unicast queries.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Broadcast or (especially) IP multicast can provide a
+ way to locate nearby name servers without knowing their
+ IP addresses in advance. However, general broadcasting
+ of recursive queries can result in excessive and
+ unnecessary load on both network and servers.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 76]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ 6.1.3.3 Efficient Resource Usage
+
+ The following requirements on servers and resolvers are very
+ important to the health of the Internet as a whole,
+ particularly when DNS services are invoked repeatedly by
+ higher level automatic servers, such as mailers.
+
+ (1) The resolver MUST implement retransmission controls to
+ insure that it does not waste communication bandwidth,
+ and MUST impose finite bounds on the resources consumed
+ to respond to a single request. See [DNS:2] pages 43-
+ 44 for specific recommendations.
+
+ (2) After a query has been retransmitted several times
+ without a response, an implementation MUST give up and
+ return a soft error to the application.
+
+ (3) All DNS name servers and resolvers SHOULD cache
+ temporary failures, with a timeout period of the order
+ of minutes.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ This will prevent applications that immediately
+ retry soft failures (in violation of Section 2.2
+ of this document) from generating excessive DNS
+ traffic.
+
+ (4) All DNS name servers and resolvers SHOULD cache
+ negative responses that indicate the specified name, or
+ data of the specified type, does not exist, as
+ described in [DNS:2].
+
+ (5) When a DNS server or resolver retries a UDP query, the
+ retry interval SHOULD be constrained by an exponential
+ backoff algorithm, and SHOULD also have upper and lower
+ bounds.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ A measured RTT and variance (if available) should
+ be used to calculate an initial retransmission
+ interval. If this information is not available, a
+ default of no less than 5 seconds should be used.
+ Implementations may limit the retransmission
+ interval, but this limit must exceed twice the
+ Internet maximum segment lifetime plus service
+ delay at the name server.
+
+ (6) When a resolver or server receives a Source Quench for
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 77]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ a query it has issued, it SHOULD take steps to reduce
+ the rate of querying that server in the near future. A
+ server MAY ignore a Source Quench that it receives as
+ the result of sending a response datagram.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ One recommended action to reduce the rate is to
+ send the next query attempt to an alternate
+ server, if there is one available. Another is to
+ backoff the retry interval for the same server.
+
+
+ 6.1.3.4 Multihomed Hosts
+
+ When the host name-to-address function encounters a host
+ with multiple addresses, it SHOULD rank or sort the
+ addresses using knowledge of the immediately connected
+ network number(s) and any other applicable performance or
+ history information.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The different addresses of a multihomed host generally
+ imply different Internet paths, and some paths may be
+ preferable to others in performance, reliability, or
+ administrative restrictions. There is no general way
+ for the domain system to determine the best path. A
+ recommended approach is to base this decision on local
+ configuration information set by the system
+ administrator.
+
+ IMPLEMENTATION:
+ The following scheme has been used successfully:
+
+ (a) Incorporate into the host configuration data a
+ Network-Preference List, that is simply a list of
+ networks in preferred order. This list may be
+ empty if there is no preference.
+
+ (b) When a host name is mapped into a list of IP
+ addresses, these addresses should be sorted by
+ network number, into the same order as the
+ corresponding networks in the Network-Preference
+ List. IP addresses whose networks do not appear
+ in the Network-Preference List should be placed at
+ the end of the list.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 78]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ 6.1.3.5 Extensibility
+
+ DNS software MUST support all well-known, class-independent
+ formats [DNS:2], and SHOULD be written to minimize the
+ trauma associated with the introduction of new well-known
+ types and local experimentation with non-standard types.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The data types and classes used by the DNS are
+ extensible, and thus new types will be added and old
+ types deleted or redefined. Introduction of new data
+ types ought to be dependent only upon the rules for
+ compression of domain names inside DNS messages, and
+ the translation between printable (i.e., master file)
+ and internal formats for Resource Records (RRs).
+
+ Compression relies on knowledge of the format of data
+ inside a particular RR. Hence compression must only be
+ used for the contents of well-known, class-independent
+ RRs, and must never be used for class-specific RRs or
+ RR types that are not well-known. The owner name of an
+ RR is always eligible for compression.
+
+ A name server may acquire, via zone transfer, RRs that
+ the server doesn't know how to convert to printable
+ format. A resolver can receive similar information as
+ the result of queries. For proper operation, this data
+ must be preserved, and hence the implication is that
+ DNS software cannot use textual formats for internal
+ storage.
+
+ The DNS defines domain name syntax very generally -- a
+ string of labels each containing up to 63 8-bit octets,
+ separated by dots, and with a maximum total of 255
+ octets. Particular applications of the DNS are
+ permitted to further constrain the syntax of the domain
+ names they use, although the DNS deployment has led to
+ some applications allowing more general names. In
+ particular, Section 2.1 of this document liberalizes
+ slightly the syntax of a legal Internet host name that
+ was defined in RFC-952 [DNS:4].
+
+ 6.1.3.6 Status of RR Types
+
+ Name servers MUST be able to load all RR types except MD and
+ MF from configuration files. The MD and MF types are
+ obsolete and MUST NOT be implemented; in particular, name
+ servers MUST NOT load these types from configuration files.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 79]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The RR types MB, MG, MR, NULL, MINFO and RP are
+ considered experimental, and applications that use the
+ DNS cannot expect these RR types to be supported by
+ most domains. Furthermore these types are subject to
+ redefinition.
+
+ The TXT and WKS RR types have not been widely used by
+ Internet sites; as a result, an application cannot rely
+ on the the existence of a TXT or WKS RR in most
+ domains.
+
+ 6.1.3.7 Robustness
+
+ DNS software may need to operate in environments where the
+ root servers or other servers are unavailable due to network
+ connectivity or other problems. In this situation, DNS name
+ servers and resolvers MUST continue to provide service for
+ the reachable part of the name space, while giving temporary
+ failures for the rest.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Although the DNS is meant to be used primarily in the
+ connected Internet, it should be possible to use the
+ system in networks which are unconnected to the
+ Internet. Hence implementations must not depend on
+ access to root servers before providing service for
+ local names.
+
+ 6.1.3.8 Local Host Table
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ A host may use a local host table as a backup or
+ supplement to the DNS. This raises the question of
+ which takes precedence, the DNS or the host table; the
+ most flexible approach would make this a configuration
+ option.
+
+ Typically, the contents of such a supplementary host
+ table will be determined locally by the site. However,
+ a publically-available table of Internet hosts is
+ maintained by the DDN Network Information Center (DDN
+ NIC), with a format documented in [DNS:4]. This table
+ can be retrieved from the DDN NIC using a protocol
+ described in [DNS:5]. It must be noted that this table
+ contains only a small fraction of all Internet hosts.
+ Hosts using this protocol to retrieve the DDN NIC host
+ table should use the VERSION command to check if the
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 80]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ table has changed before requesting the entire table
+ with the ALL command. The VERSION identifier should be
+ treated as an arbitrary string and tested only for
+ equality; no numerical sequence may be assumed.
+
+ The DDN NIC host table includes administrative
+ information that is not needed for host operation and
+ is therefore not currently included in the DNS
+ database; examples include network and gateway entries.
+ However, much of this additional information will be
+ added to the DNS in the future. Conversely, the DNS
+ provides essential services (in particular, MX records)
+ that are not available from the DDN NIC host table.
+
+ 6.1.4 DNS USER INTERFACE
+
+ 6.1.4.1 DNS Administration
+
+ This document is concerned with design and implementation
+ issues in host software, not with administrative or
+ operational issues. However, administrative issues are of
+ particular importance in the DNS, since errors in particular
+ segments of this large distributed database can cause poor
+ or erroneous performance for many sites. These issues are
+ discussed in [DNS:6] and [DNS:7].
+
+ 6.1.4.2 DNS User Interface
+
+ Hosts MUST provide an interface to the DNS for all
+ application programs running on the host. This interface
+ will typically direct requests to a system process to
+ perform the resolver function [DNS:1, 6.1:2].
+
+ At a minimum, the basic interface MUST support a request for
+ all information of a specific type and class associated with
+ a specific name, and it MUST return either all of the
+ requested information, a hard error code, or a soft error
+ indication. When there is no error, the basic interface
+ returns the complete response information without
+ modification, deletion, or ordering, so that the basic
+ interface will not need to be changed to accommodate new
+ data types.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The soft error indication is an essential part of the
+ interface, since it may not always be possible to
+ access particular information from the DNS; see Section
+ 6.1.3.3.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 81]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ A host MAY provide other DNS interfaces tailored to
+ particular functions, transforming the raw domain data into
+ formats more suited to these functions. In particular, a
+ host MUST provide a DNS interface to facilitate translation
+ between host addresses and host names.
+
+ 6.1.4.3 Interface Abbreviation Facilities
+
+ User interfaces MAY provide a method for users to enter
+ abbreviations for commonly-used names. Although the
+ definition of such methods is outside of the scope of the
+ DNS specification, certain rules are necessary to insure
+ that these methods allow access to the entire DNS name space
+ and to prevent excessive use of Internet resources.
+
+ If an abbreviation method is provided, then:
+
+ (a) There MUST be some convention for denoting that a name
+ is already complete, so that the abbreviation method(s)
+ are suppressed. A trailing dot is the usual method.
+
+ (b) Abbreviation expansion MUST be done exactly once, and
+ MUST be done in the context in which the name was
+ entered.
+
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ For example, if an abbreviation is used in a mail
+ program for a destination, the abbreviation should be
+ expanded into a full domain name and stored in the
+ queued message with an indication that it is already
+ complete. Otherwise, the abbreviation might be
+ expanded with a mail system search list, not the
+ user's, or a name could grow due to repeated
+ canonicalizations attempts interacting with wildcards.
+
+ The two most common abbreviation methods are:
+
+ (1) Interface-level aliases
+
+ Interface-level aliases are conceptually implemented as
+ a list of alias/domain name pairs. The list can be
+ per-user or per-host, and separate lists can be
+ associated with different functions, e.g. one list for
+ host name-to-address translation, and a different list
+ for mail domains. When the user enters a name, the
+ interface attempts to match the name to the alias
+ component of a list entry, and if a matching entry can
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 82]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ be found, the name is replaced by the domain name found
+ in the pair.
+
+ Note that interface-level aliases and CNAMEs are
+ completely separate mechanisms; interface-level aliases
+ are a local matter while CNAMEs are an Internet-wide
+ aliasing mechanism which is a required part of any DNS
+ implementation.
+
+ (2) Search Lists
+
+ A search list is conceptually implemented as an ordered
+ list of domain names. When the user enters a name, the
+ domain names in the search list are used as suffixes to
+ the user-supplied name, one by one, until a domain name
+ with the desired associated data is found, or the
+ search list is exhausted. Search lists often contain
+ the name of the local host's parent domain or other
+ ancestor domains. Search lists are often per-user or
+ per-process.
+
+ It SHOULD be possible for an administrator to disable a
+ DNS search-list facility. Administrative denial may be
+ warranted in some cases, to prevent abuse of the DNS.
+
+ There is danger that a search-list mechanism will
+ generate excessive queries to the root servers while
+ testing whether user input is a complete domain name,
+ lacking a final period to mark it as complete. A
+ search-list mechanism MUST have one of, and SHOULD have
+ both of, the following two provisions to prevent this:
+
+ (a) The local resolver/name server can implement
+ caching of negative responses (see Section
+ 6.1.3.3).
+
+ (b) The search list expander can require two or more
+ interior dots in a generated domain name before it
+ tries using the name in a query to non-local
+ domain servers, such as the root.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The intent of this requirement is to avoid
+ excessive delay for the user as the search list is
+ tested, and more importantly to prevent excessive
+ traffic to the root and other high-level servers.
+ For example, if the user supplied a name "X" and
+ the search list contained the root as a component,
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 83]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ a query would have to consult a root server before
+ the next search list alternative could be tried.
+ The resulting load seen by the root servers and
+ gateways near the root would be multiplied by the
+ number of hosts in the Internet.
+
+ The negative caching alternative limits the effect
+ to the first time a name is used. The interior
+ dot rule is simpler to implement but can prevent
+ easy use of some top-level names.
+
+
+ 6.1.5 DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
+
+ | | | | |S| |
+ | | | | |H| |F
+ | | | | |O|M|o
+ | | |S| |U|U|o
+ | | |H| |L|S|t
+ | |M|O| |D|T|n
+ | |U|U|M| | |o
+ | |S|L|A|N|N|t
+ | |T|D|Y|O|O|t
+FEATURE |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+GENERAL ISSUES | | | | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Implement DNS name-to-address conversion |6.1.1 |x| | | | |
+Implement DNS address-to-name conversion |6.1.1 |x| | | | |
+Support conversions using host table |6.1.1 | | |x| | |
+Properly handle RR with zero TTL |6.1.2.1 |x| | | | |
+Use QCLASS=* unnecessarily |6.1.2.2 | |x| | | |
+ Use QCLASS=IN for Internet class |6.1.2.2 |x| | | | |
+Unused fields zero |6.1.2.3 |x| | | | |
+Use compression in responses |6.1.2.4 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Include config info in responses |6.1.2.5 | | | | |x|
+Support all well-known, class-indep. types |6.1.3.5 |x| | | | |
+Easily expand type list |6.1.3.5 | |x| | | |
+Load all RR types (except MD and MF) |6.1.3.6 |x| | | | |
+Load MD or MF type |6.1.3.6 | | | | |x|
+Operate when root servers, etc. unavailable |6.1.3.7 |x| | | | |
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+RESOLVER ISSUES: | | | | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Resolver support multiple concurrent requests |6.1.3.1 | |x| | | |
+Full-service resolver: |6.1.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ Local caching |6.1.3.1 |x| | | | |
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 84]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ Information in local cache times out |6.1.3.1 |x| | | | |
+ Configurable with starting info |6.1.3.1 | |x| | | |
+Stub resolver: |6.1.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ Use redundant recursive name servers |6.1.3.1 |x| | | | |
+ Local caching |6.1.3.1 | | |x| | |
+ Information in local cache times out |6.1.3.1 |x| | | | |
+Support for remote multi-homed hosts: | | | | | | |
+ Sort multiple addresses by preference list |6.1.3.4 | |x| | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+TRANSPORT PROTOCOLS: | | | | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Support UDP queries |6.1.3.2 |x| | | | |
+Support TCP queries |6.1.3.2 | |x| | | |
+ Send query using UDP first |6.1.3.2 |x| | | | |1
+ Try TCP if UDP answers are truncated |6.1.3.2 | |x| | | |
+Name server limit TCP query resources |6.1.3.2 | | |x| | |
+ Punish unnecessary TCP query |6.1.3.2 | | | |x| |
+Use truncated data as if it were not |6.1.3.2 | | | | |x|
+Private agreement to use only TCP |6.1.3.2 | | |x| | |
+Use TCP for zone transfers |6.1.3.2 |x| | | | |
+TCP usage not block UDP queries |6.1.3.2 |x| | | | |
+Support broadcast or multicast queries |6.1.3.2 | | |x| | |
+ RD bit set in query |6.1.3.2 | | | | |x|
+ RD bit ignored by server is b'cast/m'cast |6.1.3.2 |x| | | | |
+ Send only as occasional probe for addr's |6.1.3.2 | |x| | | |
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+RESOURCE USAGE: | | | | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Transmission controls, per [DNS:2] |6.1.3.3 |x| | | | |
+ Finite bounds per request |6.1.3.3 |x| | | | |
+Failure after retries => soft error |6.1.3.3 |x| | | | |
+Cache temporary failures |6.1.3.3 | |x| | | |
+Cache negative responses |6.1.3.3 | |x| | | |
+Retries use exponential backoff |6.1.3.3 | |x| | | |
+ Upper, lower bounds |6.1.3.3 | |x| | | |
+Client handle Source Quench |6.1.3.3 | |x| | | |
+Server ignore Source Quench |6.1.3.3 | | |x| | |
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+USER INTERFACE: | | | | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+All programs have access to DNS interface |6.1.4.2 |x| | | | |
+Able to request all info for given name |6.1.4.2 |x| | | | |
+Returns complete info or error |6.1.4.2 |x| | | | |
+Special interfaces |6.1.4.2 | | |x| | |
+ Name<->Address translation |6.1.4.2 |x| | | | |
+ | | | | | | |
+Abbreviation Facilities: |6.1.4.3 | | |x| | |
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 85]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- DOMAINS October 1989
+
+
+ Convention for complete names |6.1.4.3 |x| | | | |
+ Conversion exactly once |6.1.4.3 |x| | | | |
+ Conversion in proper context |6.1.4.3 |x| | | | |
+ Search list: |6.1.4.3 | | |x| | |
+ Administrator can disable |6.1.4.3 | |x| | | |
+ Prevention of excessive root queries |6.1.4.3 |x| | | | |
+ Both methods |6.1.4.3 | |x| | | |
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+
+1. Unless there is private agreement between particular resolver and
+ particular server.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 86]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- INITIALIZATION October 1989
+
+
+ 6.2 HOST INITIALIZATION
+
+ 6.2.1 INTRODUCTION
+
+ This section discusses the initialization of host software
+ across a connected network, or more generally across an
+ Internet path. This is necessary for a diskless host, and may
+ optionally be used for a host with disk drives. For a diskless
+ host, the initialization process is called "network booting"
+ and is controlled by a bootstrap program located in a boot ROM.
+
+ To initialize a diskless host across the network, there are two
+ distinct phases:
+
+ (1) Configure the IP layer.
+
+ Diskless machines often have no permanent storage in which
+ to store network configuration information, so that
+ sufficient configuration information must be obtained
+ dynamically to support the loading phase that follows.
+ This information must include at least the IP addresses of
+ the host and of the boot server. To support booting
+ across a gateway, the address mask and a list of default
+ gateways are also required.
+
+ (2) Load the host system code.
+
+ During the loading phase, an appropriate file transfer
+ protocol is used to copy the system code across the
+ network from the boot server.
+
+ A host with a disk may perform the first step, dynamic
+ configuration. This is important for microcomputers, whose
+ floppy disks allow network configuration information to be
+ mistakenly duplicated on more than one host. Also,
+ installation of new hosts is much simpler if they automatically
+ obtain their configuration information from a central server,
+ saving administrator time and decreasing the probability of
+ mistakes.
+
+ 6.2.2 REQUIREMENTS
+
+ 6.2.2.1 Dynamic Configuration
+
+ A number of protocol provisions have been made for dynamic
+ configuration.
+
+ o ICMP Information Request/Reply messages
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 87]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- INITIALIZATION October 1989
+
+
+ This obsolete message pair was designed to allow a host
+ to find the number of the network it is on.
+ Unfortunately, it was useful only if the host already
+ knew the host number part of its IP address,
+ information that hosts requiring dynamic configuration
+ seldom had.
+
+ o Reverse Address Resolution Protocol (RARP) [BOOT:4]
+
+ RARP is a link-layer protocol for a broadcast medium
+ that allows a host to find its IP address given its
+ link layer address. Unfortunately, RARP does not work
+ across IP gateways and therefore requires a RARP server
+ on every network. In addition, RARP does not provide
+ any other configuration information.
+
+ o ICMP Address Mask Request/Reply messages
+
+ These ICMP messages allow a host to learn the address
+ mask for a particular network interface.
+
+ o BOOTP Protocol [BOOT:2]
+
+ This protocol allows a host to determine the IP
+ addresses of the local host and the boot server, the
+ name of an appropriate boot file, and optionally the
+ address mask and list of default gateways. To locate a
+ BOOTP server, the host broadcasts a BOOTP request using
+ UDP. Ad hoc gateway extensions have been used to
+ transmit the BOOTP broadcast through gateways, and in
+ the future the IP Multicasting facility will provide a
+ standard mechanism for this purpose.
+
+
+ The suggested approach to dynamic configuration is to use
+ the BOOTP protocol with the extensions defined in "BOOTP
+ Vendor Information Extensions" RFC-1084 [BOOT:3]. RFC-1084
+ defines some important general (not vendor-specific)
+ extensions. In particular, these extensions allow the
+ address mask to be supplied in BOOTP; we RECOMMEND that the
+ address mask be supplied in this manner.
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ Historically, subnetting was defined long after IP, and
+ so a separate mechanism (ICMP Address Mask messages)
+ was designed to supply the address mask to a host.
+ However, the IP address mask and the corresponding IP
+ address conceptually form a pair, and for operational
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 88]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- INITIALIZATION October 1989
+
+
+ simplicity they ought to be defined at the same time
+ and by the same mechanism, whether a configuration file
+ or a dynamic mechanism like BOOTP.
+
+ Note that BOOTP is not sufficiently general to specify
+ the configurations of all interfaces of a multihomed
+ host. A multihomed host must either use BOOTP
+ separately for each interface, or configure one
+ interface using BOOTP to perform the loading, and
+ perform the complete initialization from a file later.
+
+ Application layer configuration information is expected
+ to be obtained from files after loading of the system
+ code.
+
+ 6.2.2.2 Loading Phase
+
+ A suggested approach for the loading phase is to use TFTP
+ [BOOT:1] between the IP addresses established by BOOTP.
+
+ TFTP to a broadcast address SHOULD NOT be used, for reasons
+ explained in Section 4.2.3.4.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 89]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+ 6.3 REMOTE MANAGEMENT
+
+ 6.3.1 INTRODUCTION
+
+ The Internet community has recently put considerable effort
+ into the development of network management protocols. The
+ result has been a two-pronged approach [MGT:1, MGT:6]: the
+ Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [MGT:4] and the
+ Common Management Information Protocol over TCP (CMOT) [MGT:5].
+
+ In order to be managed using SNMP or CMOT, a host will need to
+ implement an appropriate management agent. An Internet host
+ SHOULD include an agent for either SNMP or CMOT.
+
+ Both SNMP and CMOT operate on a Management Information Base
+ (MIB) that defines a collection of management values. By
+ reading and setting these values, a remote application may
+ query and change the state of the managed system.
+
+ A standard MIB [MGT:3] has been defined for use by both
+ management protocols, using data types defined by the Structure
+ of Management Information (SMI) defined in [MGT:2]. Additional
+ MIB variables can be introduced under the "enterprises" and
+ "experimental" subtrees of the MIB naming space [MGT:2].
+
+ Every protocol module in the host SHOULD implement the relevant
+ MIB variables. A host SHOULD implement the MIB variables as
+ defined in the most recent standard MIB, and MAY implement
+ other MIB variables when appropriate and useful.
+
+ 6.3.2 PROTOCOL WALK-THROUGH
+
+ The MIB is intended to cover both hosts and gateways, although
+ there may be detailed differences in MIB application to the two
+ cases. This section contains the appropriate interpretation of
+ the MIB for hosts. It is likely that later versions of the MIB
+ will include more entries for host management.
+
+ A managed host must implement the following groups of MIB
+ object definitions: System, Interfaces, Address Translation,
+ IP, ICMP, TCP, and UDP.
+
+ The following specific interpretations apply to hosts:
+
+ o ipInHdrErrors
+
+ Note that the error "time-to-live exceeded" can occur in a
+ host only when it is forwarding a source-routed datagram.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 90]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+ o ipOutNoRoutes
+
+ This object counts datagrams discarded because no route
+ can be found. This may happen in a host if all the
+ default gateways in the host's configuration are down.
+
+ o ipFragOKs, ipFragFails, ipFragCreates
+
+ A host that does not implement intentional fragmentation
+ (see "Fragmentation" section of [INTRO:1]) MUST return the
+ value zero for these three objects.
+
+ o icmpOutRedirects
+
+ For a host, this object MUST always be zero, since hosts
+ do not send Redirects.
+
+ o icmpOutAddrMaskReps
+
+ For a host, this object MUST always be zero, unless the
+ host is an authoritative source of address mask
+ information.
+
+ o ipAddrTable
+
+ For a host, the "IP Address Table" object is effectively a
+ table of logical interfaces.
+
+ o ipRoutingTable
+
+ For a host, the "IP Routing Table" object is effectively a
+ combination of the host's Routing Cache and the static
+ route table described in "Routing Outbound Datagrams"
+ section of [INTRO:1].
+
+ Within each ipRouteEntry, ipRouteMetric1...4 normally will
+ have no meaning for a host and SHOULD always be -1, while
+ ipRouteType will normally have the value "remote".
+
+ If destinations on the connected network do not appear in
+ the Route Cache (see "Routing Outbound Datagrams section
+ of [INTRO:1]), there will be no entries with ipRouteType
+ of "direct".
+
+
+ DISCUSSION:
+ The current MIB does not include Type-of-Service in an
+ ipRouteEntry, but a future revision is expected to make
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 91]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+ this addition.
+
+ We also expect the MIB to be expanded to allow the remote
+ management of applications (e.g., the ability to partially
+ reconfigure mail systems). Network service applications
+ such as mail systems should therefore be written with the
+ "hooks" for remote management.
+
+ 6.3.3 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
+
+ | | | | |S| |
+ | | | | |H| |F
+ | | | | |O|M|o
+ | | |S| |U|U|o
+ | | |H| |L|S|t
+ | |M|O| |D|T|n
+ | |U|U|M| | |o
+ | |S|L|A|N|N|t
+ | |T|D|Y|O|O|t
+FEATURE |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
+-----------------------------------------------|-----------|-|-|-|-|-|--
+Support SNMP or CMOT agent |6.3.1 | |x| | | |
+Implement specified objects in standard MIB |6.3.1 | |x| | | |
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 92]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+7. REFERENCES
+
+ This section lists the primary references with which every
+ implementer must be thoroughly familiar. It also lists some
+ secondary references that are suggested additional reading.
+
+ INTRODUCTORY REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [INTRO:1] "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers,"
+ IETF Host Requirements Working Group, R. Braden, Ed., RFC-1122,
+ October 1989.
+
+ [INTRO:2] "DDN Protocol Handbook," NIC-50004, NIC-50005, NIC-50006,
+ (three volumes), SRI International, December 1985.
+
+ [INTRO:3] "Official Internet Protocols," J. Reynolds and J. Postel,
+ RFC-1011, May 1987.
+
+ This document is republished periodically with new RFC numbers;
+ the latest version must be used.
+
+ [INTRO:4] "Protocol Document Order Information," O. Jacobsen and J.
+ Postel, RFC-980, March 1986.
+
+ [INTRO:5] "Assigned Numbers," J. Reynolds and J. Postel, RFC-1010,
+ May 1987.
+
+ This document is republished periodically with new RFC numbers;
+ the latest version must be used.
+
+
+ TELNET REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [TELNET:1] "Telnet Protocol Specification," J. Postel and J.
+ Reynolds, RFC-854, May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:2] "Telnet Option Specification," J. Postel and J. Reynolds,
+ RFC-855, May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:3] "Telnet Binary Transmission," J. Postel and J. Reynolds,
+ RFC-856, May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:4] "Telnet Echo Option," J. Postel and J. Reynolds, RFC-857,
+ May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:5] "Telnet Suppress Go Ahead Option," J. Postel and J.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 93]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+ Reynolds, RFC-858, May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:6] "Telnet Status Option," J. Postel and J. Reynolds, RFC-
+ 859, May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:7] "Telnet Timing Mark Option," J. Postel and J. Reynolds,
+ RFC-860, May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:8] "Telnet Extended Options List," J. Postel and J.
+ Reynolds, RFC-861, May 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:9] "Telnet End-Of-Record Option," J. Postel, RFC-855,
+ December 1983.
+
+ [TELNET:10] "Telnet Terminal-Type Option," J. VanBokkelen, RFC-1091,
+ February 1989.
+
+ This document supercedes RFC-930.
+
+ [TELNET:11] "Telnet Window Size Option," D. Waitzman, RFC-1073,
+ October 1988.
+
+ [TELNET:12] "Telnet Linemode Option," D. Borman, RFC-1116, August
+ 1989.
+
+ [TELNET:13] "Telnet Terminal Speed Option," C. Hedrick, RFC-1079,
+ December 1988.
+
+ [TELNET:14] "Telnet Remote Flow Control Option," C. Hedrick, RFC-
+ 1080, November 1988.
+
+
+ SECONDARY TELNET REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [TELNET:15] "Telnet Protocol," MIL-STD-1782, U.S. Department of
+ Defense, May 1984.
+
+ This document is intended to describe the same protocol as RFC-
+ 854. In case of conflict, RFC-854 takes precedence, and the
+ present document takes precedence over both.
+
+ [TELNET:16] "SUPDUP Protocol," M. Crispin, RFC-734, October 1977.
+
+ [TELNET:17] "Telnet SUPDUP Option," M. Crispin, RFC-736, October
+ 1977.
+
+ [TELNET:18] "Data Entry Terminal Option," J. Day, RFC-732, June 1977.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 94]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+ [TELNET:19] "TELNET Data Entry Terminal option -- DODIIS
+ Implementation," A. Yasuda and T. Thompson, RFC-1043, February
+ 1988.
+
+
+ FTP REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [FTP:1] "File Transfer Protocol," J. Postel and J. Reynolds, RFC-
+ 959, October 1985.
+
+ [FTP:2] "Document File Format Standards," J. Postel, RFC-678,
+ December 1974.
+
+ [FTP:3] "File Transfer Protocol," MIL-STD-1780, U.S. Department of
+ Defense, May 1984.
+
+ This document is based on an earlier version of the FTP
+ specification (RFC-765) and is obsolete.
+
+
+ TFTP REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [TFTP:1] "The TFTP Protocol Revision 2," K. Sollins, RFC-783, June
+ 1981.
+
+
+ MAIL REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [SMTP:1] "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol," J. Postel, RFC-821, August
+ 1982.
+
+ [SMTP:2] "Standard For The Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages,"
+ D. Crocker, RFC-822, August 1982.
+
+ This document obsoleted an earlier specification, RFC-733.
+
+ [SMTP:3] "Mail Routing and the Domain System," C. Partridge, RFC-
+ 974, January 1986.
+
+ This RFC describes the use of MX records, a mandatory extension
+ to the mail delivery process.
+
+ [SMTP:4] "Duplicate Messages and SMTP," C. Partridge, RFC-1047,
+ February 1988.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 95]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+ [SMTP:5a] "Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822," S. Kille, RFC-987,
+ June 1986.
+
+ [SMTP:5b] "Addendum to RFC-987," S. Kille, RFC-???, September 1987.
+
+ The two preceding RFC's define a proposed standard for
+ gatewaying mail between the Internet and the X.400 environments.
+
+ [SMTP:6] "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol," MIL-STD-1781, U.S.
+ Department of Defense, May 1984.
+
+ This specification is intended to describe the same protocol as
+ does RFC-821. However, MIL-STD-1781 is incomplete; in
+ particular, it does not include MX records [SMTP:3].
+
+ [SMTP:7] "A Content-Type Field for Internet Messages," M. Sirbu,
+ RFC-1049, March 1988.
+
+
+ DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [DNS:1] "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities," P. Mockapetris,
+ RFC-1034, November 1987.
+
+ This document and the following one obsolete RFC-882, RFC-883,
+ and RFC-973.
+
+ [DNS:2] "Domain Names - Implementation and Specification," RFC-1035,
+ P. Mockapetris, November 1987.
+
+
+ [DNS:3] "Mail Routing and the Domain System," C. Partridge, RFC-974,
+ January 1986.
+
+
+ [DNS:4] "DoD Internet Host Table Specification," K. Harrenstein,
+ RFC-952, M. Stahl, E. Feinler, October 1985.
+
+ SECONDARY DNS REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [DNS:5] "Hostname Server," K. Harrenstein, M. Stahl, E. Feinler,
+ RFC-953, October 1985.
+
+ [DNS:6] "Domain Administrators Guide," M. Stahl, RFC-1032, November
+ 1987.
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 96]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+ [DNS:7] "Domain Administrators Operations Guide," M. Lottor, RFC-
+ 1033, November 1987.
+
+ [DNS:8] "The Domain Name System Handbook," Vol. 4 of Internet
+ Protocol Handbook, NIC 50007, SRI Network Information Center,
+ August 1989.
+
+
+ SYSTEM INITIALIZATION REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [BOOT:1] "Bootstrap Loading Using TFTP," R. Finlayson, RFC-906, June
+ 1984.
+
+ [BOOT:2] "Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP)," W. Croft and J. Gilmore, RFC-
+ 951, September 1985.
+
+ [BOOT:3] "BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions," J. Reynolds, RFC-
+ 1084, December 1988.
+
+ Note: this RFC revised and obsoleted RFC-1048.
+
+ [BOOT:4] "A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol," R. Finlayson, T.
+ Mann, J. Mogul, and M. Theimer, RFC-903, June 1984.
+
+
+ MANAGEMENT REFERENCES:
+
+
+ [MGT:1] "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet Network
+ Management Standards," V. Cerf, RFC-1052, April 1988.
+
+ [MGT:2] "Structure and Identification of Management Information for
+ TCP/IP-based internets," M. Rose and K. McCloghrie, RFC-1065,
+ August 1988.
+
+ [MGT:3] "Management Information Base for Network Management of
+ TCP/IP-based internets," M. Rose and K. McCloghrie, RFC-1066,
+ August 1988.
+
+ [MGT:4] "A Simple Network Management Protocol," J. Case, M. Fedor,
+ M. Schoffstall, and C. Davin, RFC-1098, April 1989.
+
+ [MGT:5] "The Common Management Information Services and Protocol
+ over TCP/IP," U. Warrier and L. Besaw, RFC-1095, April 1989.
+
+ [MGT:6] "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network Management Review
+ Group," V. Cerf, RFC-1109, August 1989.
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 97]
+
+
+
+
+RFC1123 SUPPORT SERVICES -- MANAGEMENT October 1989
+
+
+Security Considerations
+
+ There are many security issues in the application and support
+ programs of host software, but a full discussion is beyond the scope
+ of this RFC. Security-related issues are mentioned in sections
+ concerning TFTP (Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.5), the SMTP VRFY and
+ EXPN commands (Section 5.2.3), the SMTP HELO command (5.2.5), and the
+ SMTP DATA command (Section 5.2.8).
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Robert Braden
+ USC/Information Sciences Institute
+ 4676 Admiralty Way
+ Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
+
+ Phone: (213) 822 1511
+
+ EMail: Braden@ISI.EDU
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force [Page 98]
+
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.39.1) at 2024-11-22 08:41:48 +0000