Network Working Group C. Newman
Request for Comments: 5337 Sun Microsystems
Updates: 3461, 3464, 3798 A. Melnikov, Ed.
Category: Experimental Isode Ltd
September 2008
Network Working Group C. Newman
Request for Comments: 5337 Sun Microsystems
Updates: 3461, 3464, 3798 A. Melnikov, Ed.
Category: Experimental Isode Ltd
September 2008
Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications
国际化交付状态和处置通知
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
这份备忘录为互联网社区定义了一个实验性协议。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。要求进行讨论并提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Abstract
摘要
Delivery status notifications (DSNs) are critical to the correct operation of an email system. However, the existing Draft Standards (RFC 3461, RFC 3462, RFC 3464) are presently limited to US-ASCII text in the machine-readable portions of the protocol. This specification adds a new address type for international email addresses so an original recipient address with non-US-ASCII characters can be correctly preserved even after downgrading. This also provides updated content return media types for delivery status notifications and message disposition notifications to support use of the new address type.
传递状态通知（DSN）对于电子邮件系统的正确运行至关重要。然而，现有标准草案（RFC 3461、RFC 3462、RFC 3464）目前仅限于协议机器可读部分中的US-ASCII文本。此规范为国际电子邮件地址添加了新的地址类型，因此即使降级后，也可以正确保留包含非美国ASCII字符的原始收件人地址。这还为传递状态通知和邮件处置通知提供更新的内容返回媒体类型，以支持使用新的地址类型。
This document experimentally extends RFC 3461, RFC 3464, and RFC 3798.
本文档在实验上扩展了RFC 3461、RFC 3464和RFC 3798。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. UTF-8 Address Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. UTF-8 Delivery Status Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Additional Requirements on SMTP Servers . . . . . . . . . 8
5. UTF-8 Message Disposition Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. UTF-8 Mail Address Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Update to 'smtp' Diagnostic Type Registration . . . . . . 11
6.3. message/global-headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. message/global-delivery-status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. message/global-disposition-notification . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. UTF-8 Address Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. UTF-8 Delivery Status Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Additional Requirements on SMTP Servers . . . . . . . . . 8
5. UTF-8 Message Disposition Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. UTF-8 Mail Address Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Update to 'smtp' Diagnostic Type Registration . . . . . . 11
6.3. message/global-headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. message/global-delivery-status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. message/global-disposition-notification . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
When an email message is transmitted using the UTF8SMTP [RFC5336] extension and Internationalized Email Headers [RFC5335], it is sometimes necessary to return that message or generate a Message Disposition Notification (MDN) [RFC3798]. As a message sent to multiple recipients can generate a status and disposition notification for each recipient, it is helpful if a client can correlate these notifications based on the recipient address it provided; thus, preservation of the original recipient is important. This specification describes how to preserve the original recipient and updates the MDN and DSN formats to support the new address types.
当使用UTF8SMTP[RFC5336]扩展和国际化电子邮件头[RFC5335]传输电子邮件时，有时需要返回该邮件或生成邮件处置通知（MDN）[RFC3798]。由于发送给多个收件人的邮件可以为每个收件人生成状态和处置通知，因此，如果客户机可以根据其提供的收件人地址关联这些通知，则会很有帮助；因此，保存原始接收人是很重要的。本规范描述了如何保留原始收件人并更新MDN和DSN格式以支持新的地址类型。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
The formal syntax use the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] notation including the core rules defined in Appendix B of RFC 5234 [RFC5234] and the UTF-8 syntax rules in Section 4 of [RFC3629].
形式语法使用增广巴科斯诺尔形式（ABNF）[RFC5234]符号，包括RFC 5234[RFC5234]附录B中定义的核心规则和[RFC3629]第4节中的UTF-8语法规则。
An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications [RFC3464] defines the concept of an address type. The address format introduced in Internationalized Email Headers [RFC5335] is a new address type. The syntax for the new address type in the context of status notifications is specified at the end of this section.
传递状态通知的可扩展消息格式[RFC3464]定义了地址类型的概念。国际化电子邮件头[RFC5335]中引入的地址格式是一种新的地址类型。本节末尾指定了状态通知上下文中新地址类型的语法。
An SMTP [RFC2821] server that advertises both the UTF8SMTP extension [RFC5336] and the DSN extension [RFC3461] MUST accept a UTF-8 address type in the ORCPT parameter including 8-bit UTF-8 characters. This address type also includes a 7-bit encoding suitable for use in a message/delivery-status body part or an ORCPT parameter sent to an SMTP server that does not advertise UTF8SMTP.
播发UTF8SMTP扩展名[RFC5336]和DSN扩展名[RFC3461]的SMTP[RFC2821]服务器必须在ORCPT参数中接受UTF-8地址类型，包括8位UTF-8字符。此地址类型还包括适合在邮件/传递状态正文部分中使用的7位编码，或发送到不播发UTF8SMTP的SMTP服务器的ORCPT参数。
This address type has 3 forms: utf-8-addr-xtext, utf-8-addr-unitext, and utf-8-address. The first 2 forms are 7-bit safe.
此地址类型有3种形式：utf-8-addr-xtext、utf-8-addr-unitext和utf-8-address。前两个表单是7位安全的。
The utf-8-address form is only suitable for use in newly defined protocols capable of native representation of 8-bit characters. That is, the utf-8-address form MUST NOT be used in the ORCPT parameter when the SMTP server doesn't advertise support for UTF8SMTP or the SMTP server supports UTF8SMTP, but the address contains US-ASCII characters not permitted in the ORCPT parameter (e.g., the ORCPT parameter forbids unencoded SP and the = character), or in a 7-bit
utf-8地址格式仅适用于新定义的协议，该协议能够以8位字符的本机表示。也就是说，如果SMTP服务器不公布对UTF8SMTP的支持，或者SMTP服务器支持UTF8SMTP，但地址包含ORCPT参数中不允许的US-ASCII字符（例如，ORCPT参数禁止未编码的SP和=字符），或者在7位格式中，则不得在ORCPT参数中使用utf-8-address表单
transport environment including a message/delivery-status Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient field. In the former case, the utf-8- addr-xtext form (see below) MUST be used instead; in the latter case, the utf-8-addr-unitext form MUST be used. The utf-8-address form MAY be used in the ORCPT parameter when the SMTP server also advertises support for UTF8SMTP and the address doesn't contain any US-ASCII characters not permitted in the ORCPT parameter. It SHOULD be used in a message/global-delivery-status Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient DSN field, or in an Original-Recipient header field [RFC3798] if the message is a UTF8SMTP message.
传输环境，包括消息/传递状态原始收件人或最终收件人字段。在前一种情况下，必须使用utf-8-addr xtext表单（见下文）；在后一种情况下，必须使用utf-8-addr-unitext表单。当SMTP服务器还播发对UTF8SMTP的支持，并且地址不包含ORCPT参数中不允许的任何US-ASCII字符时，可以在ORCPT参数中使用utf-8-address表单。如果邮件是UTF8SMTP邮件，则应在邮件/全局传递状态原始收件人或最终收件人DSN字段中使用，或在原始收件人标题字段[RFC3798]中使用。
In addition, the utf-8-addr-unitext form can be used anywhere where the utf-8-address form is allowed.
此外，utf-8-addr-unitext表单可以在允许utf-8-address表单的任何地方使用。
When using in the ORCPT parameter, the UTF-8 address type requires that US-ASCII CTLs, SP, \, +, and = be encoded using xtext encoding as described in [RFC3461]. This is described by the utf-8-addr-xtext form in the ABNF below. Unicode characters MAY be included in a UTF-8 address type using a "\x{HEXPOINT}" syntax (EmbeddedUnicodeChar), where HEXPOINT is 2 to 6 hexadecimal digits. When sending data to a UTF8SMTP-capable server, native UTF-8 characters SHOULD be used instead of the EmbeddedUnicodeChar syntax described in details below. When sending data to an SMTP server that does not advertise UTF8SMTP, then the EmbeddedUnicodeChar syntax MUST be used instead of UTF-8.
在ORCPT参数中使用时，UTF-8地址类型要求使用[RFC3461]中所述的xtext编码对US-ASCII CTL、SP、\、+、和=进行编码。这由下面ABNF中的utf-8-addr-xtext表格描述。Unicode字符可以使用“\x{HEXPOINT}”语法（EmbeddedDechar）包含在UTF-8地址类型中，其中HEXPOINT是2到6个十六进制数字。将数据发送到支持UTF8SMTP的服务器时，应使用本机UTF-8字符，而不是下面详细介绍的EmbeddeDechar语法。将数据发送到不播发UTF8SMTP的SMTP服务器时，必须使用EmbeddedDenicoDechar语法而不是UTF-8。
When the ORCPT parameter is placed in a message/ global-delivery-status Original-Recipient field, the utf-8-addr-xtext form of the UTF-8 address type SHOULD be converted to the utf-8- address form (see the ABNF below) by removing all xtext encoding first (which will result in the utf-8-addr-unitext form), followed by removal of the unitext encoding. However, if an address is labeled with the UTF-8 address type but does not conform to utf-8 syntax, then it MUST be copied into the message/global-delivery-status field without alteration.
当ORCPT参数置于消息/全局传递状态原始收件人字段中时，utf-8地址类型的utf-8-addr-xtext格式应通过首先删除所有xtext编码（这将导致utf-8-addr-unitext格式）转换为utf-8-地址格式（见下面的ABNF），然后删除unitext编码。但是，如果地址标记为UTF-8地址类型，但不符合UTF-8语法，则必须将其复制到消息/全局传递状态字段中，而不进行更改。
The ability to encode characters with the EmbeddedUnicodeChar encodings should be viewed as a transitional mechanism. It is hoped that as systems lacking support for UTF8SMTP become less common over time, these encodings can eventually be phased out.
使用DECHAR编码对字符进行编码的能力应视为一种过渡机制。希望随着时间的推移，缺乏UTF8SMTP支持的系统变得越来越不常见，这些编码最终能够被淘汰。
In the ABNF below, all productions not defined in this document are defined in Appendix B of [RFC5234], in Section 4 of [RFC3629], or in [RFC3464].
在以下ABNF中，本文件中未定义的所有产品在[RFC5234]附录B、[RFC3629]第4节或[RFC3464]中定义。
utf-8-type-addr = "utf-8;" utf-8-enc-addr
utf-8-type-addr=“utf-8；”utf-8-enc-addr
utf-8-address = uMailbox [ 1*WSP "<" Mailbox ">" ] ; uMailbox is defined in [RFC5336]. ; Mailbox is defined in [RFC2821].
utf-8-address=uMailbox[1*WSP“<“邮箱”>”]；uMailbox在[RFC5336]中定义；邮箱在[RFC2821]中定义。
utf-8-enc-addr = utf-8-addr-xtext / utf-8-addr-unitext / utf-8-address
utf-8-enc-addr=utf-8-addr-xtext/utf-8-addr-unitext/utf-8-address
utf-8-addr-xtext = xtext
; xtext is defined in [RFC3461].
; When xtext encoding is removed,
; the syntax MUST conform to
; utf-8-addr-unitext.
utf-8-addr-xtext = xtext
; xtext is defined in [RFC3461].
; When xtext encoding is removed,
; the syntax MUST conform to
; utf-8-addr-unitext.
utf-8-addr-unitext = 1*(QUCHAR / EmbeddedUnicodeChar)
; MUST follow utf-8-address ABNF when
; dequoted
utf-8-addr-unitext = 1*(QUCHAR / EmbeddedUnicodeChar)
; MUST follow utf-8-address ABNF when
; dequoted
QUCHAR = %x21-2a / %x2c-3c / %x3e-5b / %x5d-7e /
UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
; US-ASCII printable characters except
; CTLs, SP, '\', '+' and '=', plus
; other Unicode characters in UTF-8
QUCHAR = %x21-2a / %x2c-3c / %x3e-5b / %x5d-7e /
UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
; US-ASCII printable characters except
; CTLs, SP, '\', '+' and '=', plus
; other Unicode characters in UTF-8
EmbeddedUnicodeChar = %x5C.78 "{" HEXPOINT "}"
; starts with "\x"
EmbeddedUnicodeChar = %x5C.78 "{" HEXPOINT "}"
; starts with "\x"
HEXPOINT = "5C" / (HEXDIG8 HEXDIG) / ; 2 digit forms
( NZHEXDIG 2(HEXDIG) ) / ; 3 digit forms
( NZDHEXDIG 3(HEXDIG) ) /
( "D" %x30-37 2(HEXDIG) ) /
; 4 digit forms excluding surrogate
( NZHEXDIG 4(HEXDIG) ) / ; 5 digit forms
( "10" 4*HEXDIG ) ; 6 digit forms
; represents either "\" or a Unicode code point outside the
; US-ASCII repertoire
HEXPOINT = "5C" / (HEXDIG8 HEXDIG) / ; 2 digit forms
( NZHEXDIG 2(HEXDIG) ) / ; 3 digit forms
( NZDHEXDIG 3(HEXDIG) ) /
( "D" %x30-37 2(HEXDIG) ) /
; 4 digit forms excluding surrogate
( NZHEXDIG 4(HEXDIG) ) / ; 5 digit forms
( "10" 4*HEXDIG ) ; 6 digit forms
; represents either "\" or a Unicode code point outside the
; US-ASCII repertoire
HEXDIG8 = %x38-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding 0-7
NZHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0"
NZDHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0" and "D"
HEXDIG8 = %x38-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding 0-7
NZHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0"
NZDHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0" and "D"
A traditional delivery status notification [RFC3464] comes in a three-part multipart/report [RFC3462] container, where the first part is human-readable text describing the error, the second part is a 7-bit-only message/delivery-status, and the optional third part is used for content (message/rfc822) or header (text/rfc822-headers) return. As the present DSN format does not permit returning of undeliverable UTF8SMTP messages, three new media types are needed.
传统的传递状态通知[RFC3464]位于由三部分组成的多部分/报告[RFC3462]容器中，其中第一部分是描述错误的可读文本，第二部分是仅7位的消息/传递状态，可选的第三部分用于返回内容（消息/rfc822）或标题（文本/rfc822标题）。由于目前的DSN格式不允许返回无法传递的UTF8SMTP消息，因此需要三种新的媒体类型。
The first type, message/global-delivery-status, has the syntax of message/delivery-status with three modifications. First, the charset for message/global-delivery-status is UTF-8, and thus any field MAY contain UTF-8 characters when appropriate (see the ABNF below). In particular, the Diagnostic-Code field MAY contain UTF-8 as described in UTF8SMTP [RFC5336]; the Diagnostic-Code field SHOULD be in i-default language [DEFAULTLANG]. Second, systems generating a message/global-delivery-status body part SHOULD use the utf-8-address form of the UTF-8 address type for all addresses containing characters outside the US-ASCII repertoire. These systems SHOULD up-convert the utf-8-addr-xtext or the utf-8-addr-unitext form of a UTF-8 address type in the ORCPT parameter to the utf-8-address form of a UTF-8 address type in the Original-Recipient field. Third, a new optional field called Localized-Diagnostic is added. Each instance includes a language tag [LANGTAGS] and contains text in the specified language. This is equivalent to the text part of the Diagnostic-Code field. All instances of Localized-Diagnostic MUST use different language tags. The ABNF for message/ global-delivery-status is specified below.
第一种类型message/global delivery status的语法为message/delivery status，有三个修改。首先，消息/全局传递状态的字符集是UTF-8，因此任何字段在适当的情况下都可能包含UTF-8字符（请参见下面的ABNF）。特别是，诊断代码字段可能包含UTF8SMTP[RFC5336]中所述的UTF-8；诊断代码字段应使用i-default语言[DEFAULTLANG]。其次，生成消息/全局传递状态正文部分的系统应使用utf-8地址类型的utf-8地址形式，用于包含US-ASCII指令表以外字符的所有地址。这些系统应将ORCPT参数中utf-8地址类型的utf-8-addr-xtext或utf-8-addr-unitext格式向上转换为原始收件人字段中utf-8地址类型的utf-8地址格式。第三，添加了一个名为本地化诊断的新可选字段。每个实例都包含一个语言标记[LANGTAGS]，并包含指定语言的文本。这相当于诊断代码字段的文本部分。本地化诊断的所有实例必须使用不同的语言标记。下面指定了消息/全局传递状态的ABNF。
In the ABNF below, all productions not defined in this document are defined in Appendix B of [RFC5234], in Section 4 of [RFC3629], or in [RFC3464].
在以下ABNF中，本文件中未定义的所有产品在[RFC5234]附录B、[RFC3629]第4节或[RFC3464]中定义。
utf-8-delivery-status-content = per-message-fields
1*( CRLF utf-8-per-recipient-fields )
; "per-message-fields" remains unchanged from the definition
; in RFC 3464, except for the "extension-field"
; which is updated below.
utf-8-delivery-status-content = per-message-fields
1*( CRLF utf-8-per-recipient-fields )
; "per-message-fields" remains unchanged from the definition
; in RFC 3464, except for the "extension-field"
; which is updated below.
utf-8-per-recipient-fields =
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field CRLF
action-field CRLF
status-field CRLF
[ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
[ diagnostic-code-field CRLF
*(localized-diagnostic-text-field CRLF) ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
; All fields except for "original-recipient-field",
; "final-recipient-field", "diagnostic-code-field"
; and "extension-field" remain unchanged from
; the definition in RFC 3464.
utf-8-per-recipient-fields =
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field CRLF
action-field CRLF
status-field CRLF
[ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
[ diagnostic-code-field CRLF
*(localized-diagnostic-text-field CRLF) ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
; All fields except for "original-recipient-field",
; "final-recipient-field", "diagnostic-code-field"
; and "extension-field" remain unchanged from
; the definition in RFC 3464.
generic-address =/ utf-8-enc-addr
; Only allowed with the "utf-8" address-type.
;
; This indirectly updates "original-recipient-field"
; and "final-recipient-field"
generic-address =/ utf-8-enc-addr
; Only allowed with the "utf-8" address-type.
;
; This indirectly updates "original-recipient-field"
; and "final-recipient-field"
diagnostic-code-field =
"Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text-fixed
diagnostic-code-field =
"Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text-fixed
localized-diagnostic-text-field = "Localized-Diagnostic" ":" Language-Tag ";" *utf8-text ; "Language-Tag" is a language tag as defined in [LANGTAGS].
本地化诊断文本字段=“本地化诊断”“：“语言标记”；*utf8文本；“语言标记”是[LANGTAGS]中定义的语言标记。
extension-field =/ extension-field-name ":" *utf8-text
extension-field =/ extension-field-name ":" *utf8-text
text-fixed = %d1-9 / ; Any Unicode character except for NUL,
%d11 / ; CR and LF, encoded in UTF-8
%d12 /
%d14-127
; Same as <text> from [RFC2822], but without <obs-text>.
; If/when RFC 2822 is updated to disallow <obs-text>,
; this should become just <text>
; Also, if/when RFC 2822 is updated to disallow control characters
; this should become a reference to RFC 2822upd instead.
text-fixed = %d1-9 / ; Any Unicode character except for NUL,
%d11 / ; CR and LF, encoded in UTF-8
%d12 /
%d14-127
; Same as <text> from [RFC2822], but without <obs-text>.
; If/when RFC 2822 is updated to disallow <obs-text>,
; this should become just <text>
; Also, if/when RFC 2822 is updated to disallow control characters
; this should become a reference to RFC 2822upd instead.
utf8-text = text-fixed / UTF8-non-ascii
utf8-text = text-fixed / UTF8-non-ascii
UTF8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
UTF8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
The second type, used for returning the content, is message/global which is similar to message/rfc822, except it contains a message with UTF-8 headers. This media type is described in [RFC5335].
第二种类型用于返回内容，它是message/global，与message/rfc822类似，只是它包含一个带有UTF-8头的消息。[RFC5335]中描述了该介质类型。
The third type, used for returning the headers, is message/ global-headers and contains only the UTF-8 header fields of a message (all lines prior to the first blank line in a UTF8SMTP message). Unlike message/global, this body part provides no difficulties for the present infrastructure.
第三种类型用于返回标头，即消息/全局标头，仅包含消息的UTF-8标头字段（UTF8SMTP消息中第一个空行之前的所有行）。与message/global不同，这个body部分对当前的基础架构没有任何困难。
Note that as far as multipart/report [RFC3462] container is concerned, message/global-delivery-status, message/global, and message/global-headers MUST be treated as equivalent to message/ delivery-status, message/rfc822, and text/rfc822-headers. That is, implementations processing multipart/report MUST expect any combinations of the 6 MIME types mentioned above inside a multipart/ report MIME type.
注意，就多部分/报告[RFC3462]容器而言，消息/全局传递状态、消息/全局和消息/全局头必须被视为等同于消息/传递状态、消息/rfc822和文本/rfc822头。也就是说，处理多部分/报表的实现必须期望在多部分/报表MIME类型中包含上述6种MIME类型的任意组合。
All three new types will typically use the "8bit" Content-Transfer-Encoding. (In the event all content is 7-bit, the equivalent traditional types for delivery status notifications MAY be used. For example, if information in message/global-delivery-status part can be represented without any loss of information as message/ delivery-status, then the message/delivery-status body part may be used.) Note that [RFC5335] relaxed restriction from MIME [RFC2046] regarding use of Content-Transfer-Encoding in new "message" subtypes. This specification explicitly allows use of Content-Transfer-Encoding in message/global-headers and message/global-delivery-status. This is not believed to be problematic as these new MIME types are intended primarily for use by newer systems with full support for 8-bit MIME and UTF-8 headers.
这三种新类型通常使用“8位”内容传输编码。（如果所有内容都是7位的，则可以使用传递状态通知的等效传统类型。例如，如果消息/全局传递状态部分中的信息可以表示为消息/传递状态，而不会丢失任何信息，则可以使用消息/传递状态体部分。）注意[RFC5335]MIME[RFC2046]放宽了对在新“消息”子类型中使用内容传输编码的限制。此规范明确允许在消息/全局头和消息/全局传递状态中使用内容传输编码。这不被认为是有问题的，因为这些新的MIME类型主要用于完全支持8位MIME和UTF-8头的较新系统。
If an SMTP server that advertises both UTF8SMTP and DSN needs to return an undeliverable UTF8SMTP message, then it MUST NOT downgrade [DOWNGRADE] the UTF8SMTP message when generating the corresponding multipart/report. If the return path SMTP server does not support UTF8SMTP, then the undeliverable body part and headers MUST be encoded using a 7-bit Content-Transfer-Encoding such as "base64" or "quoted-printable" [RFC2045], as detailed in Section 4. Otherwise, "8bit" Content-Transfer-Encoding can be used.
如果同时播发UTF8SMTP和DSN的SMTP服务器需要返回无法传递的UTF8SMTP消息，则在生成相应的多部分/报告时，它不得降级[降级]UTF8SMTP消息。如果返回路径SMTP服务器不支持UTF8SMTP，则必须使用7位内容传输编码（如“base64”或“quoted printable”[RFC2045]）对无法送达的正文部分和标头进行编码，如第4节所述。否则，可以使用“8位”内容传输编码。
Message Disposition Notifications [RFC3798] have a similar design and structure to DSNs. As a result, they use the same basic return format. When generating an MDN for a UTF-8 header message, the third part of the multipart/report contains the returned content (message/ global) or header (message/global-headers), same as for DSNs. The second part of the multipart/report uses a new media type, message/ global-disposition-notification, which has the syntax of message/ disposition-notification with two modifications. First, the charset for message/global-disposition-notification is UTF-8, and thus any field MAY contain UTF-8 characters when appropriate (see the ABNF below). (In particular, the failure-field, the error-field, and the warning-field MAY contain UTF-8. These fields SHOULD be in i-default language [DEFAULTLANG].) Second, systems generating a message/ global-disposition-notification body part (typically a mail user agent) SHOULD use the UTF-8 address type for all addresses containing characters outside the US-ASCII repertoire.
消息处置通知[RFC3798]的设计和结构与DSN类似。因此，它们使用相同的基本返回格式。为UTF-8头消息生成MDN时，多部分/报告的第三部分包含返回的内容（消息/全局）或头（消息/全局头），与DSN相同。multipart/report的第二部分使用了一种新的媒体类型message/global disposition notification，它的语法为message/disposition notification，但有两个修改。首先，消息/全局处置通知的字符集是UTF-8，因此任何字段在适当的情况下都可能包含UTF-8字符（请参见下面的ABNF）。（特别是，故障字段、错误字段和警告字段可能包含UTF-8。这些字段应使用i-default语言[DEFAULTLANG]。）第二，生成消息/全局处置通知正文部分的系统（通常是邮件用户代理）对于包含US-ASCII指令表以外字符的所有地址，应使用UTF-8地址类型。
The MDN specification also defines the Original-Recipient header field, which is added with a copy of the contents of ORCPT at delivery time. When generating an Original-Recipient header field, a delivery agent writing a UTF-8 header message in native format SHOULD convert the utf-8-addr-xtext or the utf-8-addr-unitext form of a UTF-8 address type in the ORCPT parameter to the corresponding utf-8- address form.
MDN规范还定义了原始收件人标题字段，该字段在交付时与ORCPT内容的副本一起添加。生成原始收件人标头字段时，以本机格式编写UTF-8标头消息的传递代理应将ORCPT参数中UTF-8地址类型的UTF-8-addr-xtext或UTF-8-addr-unitext格式转换为相应的UTF-8-地址格式。
The MDN specification also defines the Disposition-Notification-To header, which is an address header and thus follows the same 8-bit rules as other address headers such as "From" and "To" when used in a UTF-8 header message.
MDN规范还定义了对头的处置通知，这是一个地址头，因此在UTF-8头消息中使用时遵循与其他地址头相同的8位规则，如“From”和“To”。
; ABNF for "original-recipient-header", "original-recipient-field",
; and "final-recipient-field" from RFC 3798 is implicitly updated
; as they use the updated "generic-address" as defined in
; Section 4 of this document.
; ABNF for "original-recipient-header", "original-recipient-field",
; and "final-recipient-field" from RFC 3798 is implicitly updated
; as they use the updated "generic-address" as defined in
; Section 4 of this document.
failure-field = "Failure" ":" *utf8-text ; "utf8-text" is defined in Section 4 of this document.
failure field=“failure”“：”*utf8文本；本文件第4节定义了“utf8文本”。
error-field = "Error" ":" *utf8-text ; "utf8-text" is defined in Section 4 of this document.
error field=“error”“：”*utf8文本；本文件第4节定义了“utf8文本”。
warning-field = "Warning" ":" *utf8-text ; "utf8-text" is defined in Section 4 of this document.
警告字段=“警告”“：”*utf8文本；本文件第4节定义了“utf8文本”。
This specification does not create any new IANA registries. However, the following items have been registered as a result of this document.
本规范不创建任何新的IANA注册表。但是，以下项目已作为本文件的结果进行了登记。
The mail address type registry was created by RFC 3464. The registration template response follows:
邮件地址类型注册表由RFC 3464创建。注册模板响应如下：
(a) The proposed address-type name.
(a) 建议的地址类型名称。
UTF-8
UTF-8
(b) The syntax for mailbox addresses of this type, specified using BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous language.
(b) 此类型邮箱地址的语法，使用BNF、正则表达式、ASN.1或其他非歧义语言指定。
See Section 3.
见第3节。
(c) If addresses of this type are not composed entirely of graphic characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how they are to be encoded as graphic US-ASCII characters in a DSN Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient DSN field.
(c) 如果此类地址不完全由US-ASCII指令表中的图形字符组成，则说明如何在DSN原始收件人或最终收件人DSN字段中将其编码为图形US-ASCII字符。
This address type has 3 forms (as defined in Section 3): utf-8- addr-xtext, utf-8-addr-unitext, and utf-8-address. The first 2 forms are 7-bit safe.
此地址类型有3种形式（如第3节所定义）：utf-8-addr xtext、utf-8-addr-unitext和utf-8-adder。前两个表单是7位安全的。
The utf-8-address form MUST NOT be used
不得使用utf-8地址表
1. in the ORCPT parameter when the SMTP server doesn't advertise support for UTF8SMTP;
1. 当SMTP服务器不公布对UTF8SMTP的支持时，在ORCPT参数中；
2. or the SMTP server supports UTF8SMTP, but the address contains US-ASCII characters not permitted in the ORCPT parameter (e.g., the ORCPT parameter forbids SP and the = characters);
2. 或者SMTP服务器支持UTF8SMTP，但地址包含ORCPT参数中不允许的US-ASCII字符（例如，ORCPT参数禁止SP和=字符）；
3. or in a 7-bit transport environment including a message/ delivery-status Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient field.
3. 或在7位传输环境中，包括消息/传递状态原始收件人或最终收件人字段。
The utf-8-addr-xtext form MUST be used instead in the first case; the utf-8-addr-unitext form MUST be used in the other two cases. The utf-8-address form MAY be used in the ORCPT parameter when the SMTP server also advertises support for UTF8SMTP and the address doesn't contain any US-ASCII characters not permitted in the ORCPT parameter;
在第一种情况下，必须使用utf-8-addr-xtext格式；utf-8-addr-unitext表格必须用于其他两种情况。当SMTP服务器还播发对UTF8SMTP的支持，并且地址不包含ORCPT参数中不允许的任何US-ASCII字符时，可以在ORCPT参数中使用utf-8地址形式；
in a message/global-delivery-status Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient DSN field; or in an Original-Recipient header field [RFC3798] if the message is a UTF8SMTP message.
在邮件/全局传递状态的原始收件人或最终收件人DSN字段中；或者，如果邮件是UTF8SMTP邮件，则在原始收件人标头字段[RFC3798]中。
In addition, the utf-8-addr-unitext form can be used anywhere where the utf-8-address form is allowed.
此外，utf-8-addr-unitext表单可以在允许utf-8-address表单的任何地方使用。
The mail diagnostic type registry was created by RFC 3464. The registration for the 'smtp' diagnostic type should be updated to reference RFC 5337 in addition to RFC 3464.
邮件诊断类型注册表由RFC 3464创建。除RFC 3464外，“smtp”诊断类型的注册应更新为参考RFC 5337。
When the 'smtp' diagnostic type is used in the context of a message/ delivery-status body part, it remains as presently defined. When the 'smtp' diagnostic type is used in the context of a message/ global-delivery-status body part, the codes remain the same, but the text portion MAY contain UTF-8 characters.
当在邮件/传递状态正文部分的上下文中使用“smtp”诊断类型时，它将保持当前定义的状态。在邮件/全局传递状态正文部分的上下文中使用“smtp”诊断类型时，代码保持不变，但文本部分可能包含UTF-8字符。
Type name: message
类型名称：消息
Subtype name: global-headers
子类型名称：全局标头
Required parameters: none
所需参数：无
Optional parameters: none
可选参数：无
Encoding considerations: This media type contains Internationalized Email Headers [RFC5335] with no message body. Whenever possible, the 8-bit content transfer encoding SHOULD be used. When this media type passes through a 7-bit-only SMTP infrastructure it MAY be encoded with the base64 or quoted-printable content transfer encoding.
编码注意事项：此媒体类型包含国际化电子邮件头[RFC5335]，没有邮件正文。只要可能，应使用8位内容传输编码。当此媒体类型通过仅7位SMTP基础结构时，可以使用base64或带引号的可打印内容传输编码对其进行编码。
Security considerations: See Section 7.
安全注意事项：见第7节。
Interoperability considerations: It is important that this media type is not converted to a charset other than UTF-8. As a result, implementations MUST NOT include a charset parameter with this media type. Although it might be possible to downconvert this media type to the text/rfc822-header media type, such conversion is discouraged as it loses information.
互操作性注意事项：重要的是不要将此媒体类型转换为UTF-8以外的字符集。因此，实现不能包含具有此媒体类型的字符集参数。虽然可能会将此媒体类型下变频为text/rfc822头媒体类型，但不建议进行这种转换，因为它会丢失信息。
Published specification: RFC 5337
已发布规范：RFC 5337
Applications that use this media type: UTF8SMTP servers and email clients that support multipart/report generation or parsing.
使用此媒体类型的应用程序：支持多部分/报告生成或分析的UTF8SMTP服务器和电子邮件客户端。
Additional information:
其他信息：
Magic number(s): none
幻数：无
File extension(s): In the event this is saved to a file, the extension ".u8hdr" is suggested.
文件扩展名：如果保存到文件中，建议使用扩展名“.u8hdr”。
Macintosh file type code(s): The 'TEXT' type code is suggested as files of this type are typically used for diagnostic purposes and suitable for analysis in a UTF-8 aware text editor. A uniform type identifier (UTI) of "public.utf8-email-message-header" is suggested. This type conforms to "public.utf8-plain-text" and "public.plain-text".
Macintosh文件类型代码：建议使用“文本”类型代码，因为这种类型的文件通常用于诊断目的，并且适合在支持UTF-8的文本编辑器中进行分析。建议使用“public.utf8电子邮件消息头”的统一类型标识符（UTI）。此类型符合“public.utf8纯文本”和“public.plain text”。
Person & email address to contact for further information: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
联系人和电子邮件地址以了解更多信息：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Intended usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Restrictions on usage: This media type contains textual data in the UTF-8 charset. It typically contains octets with the 8th bit set. As a result, a transfer encoding is required when a 7-bit transport is used.
使用限制：此媒体类型在UTF-8字符集中包含文本数据。它通常包含第8位集的八位字节。因此，使用7位传输时需要传输编码。
Author: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
作者：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Change controller: IETF Standards Process
变更控制员：IETF标准流程
Type name: message
类型名称：消息
Subtype name: global-delivery-status
子类型名称：全局传递状态
Required parameters: none
所需参数：无
Optional parameters: none
可选参数：无
Encoding considerations: This media type contains delivery status notification attributes in the UTF-8 charset. The 8-bit content transfer encoding MUST be used with this content-type, unless it is sent over a 7-bit transport environment in which case quoted-printable or base64 may be necessary.
编码注意事项：此媒体类型在UTF-8字符集中包含传递状态通知属性。8位内容传输编码必须与此内容类型一起使用，除非它是通过7位传输环境发送的，在这种情况下，可能需要quoted printable或base64。
Security considerations: See Section 7
安全注意事项：见第7节
Interoperability considerations: This media type provides functionality similar to the message/delivery-status content-type for email message return information. Clients of the previous format will need to be upgraded to interpret the new format; however, the new media type makes it simple to identify the difference.
互操作性注意事项：此媒体类型提供了与电子邮件返回信息的消息/传递状态内容类型类似的功能。以前格式的客户端需要升级以解释新格式；然而，新的媒体类型使得识别差异变得简单。
Published specification: RFC 5337
已发布规范：RFC 5337
Applications that use this media type: SMTP servers and email clients that support delivery status notification generation or parsing.
使用此媒体类型的应用程序：支持传递状态通知生成或解析的SMTP服务器和电子邮件客户端。
Additional information:
其他信息：
Magic number(s): none
幻数：无
File extension(s): The extension ".u8dsn" is suggested.
文件扩展名：建议使用扩展名“.u8dsn”。
Macintosh file type code(s): A uniform type identifier (UTI) of "public.utf8-email-message-delivery-status" is suggested. This type conforms to "public.utf8-plain-text".
Macintosh文件类型代码：建议使用“public.utf8电子邮件传递状态”的统一类型标识符（UTI）。此类型符合“public.utf8纯文本”。
Person & email address to contact for further information: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
联系人和电子邮件地址以了解更多信息：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Intended usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Restrictions on usage: This is expected to be the second part of a multipart/report.
使用限制：这应该是多部分/报告的第二部分。
Author: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
作者：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Change controller: IETF Standards Process
变更控制员：IETF标准流程
Type name: message
类型名称：消息
Subtype name: global-disposition-notification
子类型名称：全局处置通知
Required parameters: none
所需参数：无
Optional parameters: none
可选参数：无
Encoding considerations: This media type contains disposition notification attributes in the UTF-8 charset. The 8-bit content transfer encoding MUST be used with this content-type, unless it is sent over a 7-bit transport environment in which case quoted-printable or base64 may be necessary.
编码注意事项：此媒体类型在UTF-8字符集中包含处置通知属性。8位内容传输编码必须与此内容类型一起使用，除非它是通过7位传输环境发送的，在这种情况下，可能需要quoted printable或base64。
Security considerations: See Section 7.
安全注意事项：见第7节。
Interoperability considerations: This media type provides functionality similar to the message/disposition-notification content-type for email message disposition information. Clients of the previous format will need to be upgraded to interpret the new format; however, the new media type makes it simple to identify the difference.
互操作性注意事项：此媒体类型提供与电子邮件处置信息的邮件/处置通知内容类型类似的功能。以前格式的客户端需要升级以解释新格式；然而，新的媒体类型使得识别差异变得简单。
Published specification: RFC 5337
已发布规范：RFC 5337
Applications that use this media type: Email clients or servers that support message disposition notification generation or parsing.
使用此媒体类型的应用程序：支持邮件处置通知生成或解析的电子邮件客户端或服务器。
Additional information:
其他信息：
Magic number(s): none
幻数：无
File extension(s): The extension ".u8mdn" is suggested.
文件扩展名：建议使用扩展名“.u8mdn”。
Macintosh file type code(s): A uniform type identifier (UTI) of "public.utf8-email-message-disposition-notification" is suggested. This type conforms to "public.utf8-plain-text".
Macintosh文件类型代码：建议使用“public.utf8电子邮件处置通知”的统一类型标识符（UTI）。此类型符合“public.utf8纯文本”。
Person & email address to contact for further information: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
联系人和电子邮件地址以了解更多信息：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Intended usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Restrictions on usage: This is expected to be the second part of a multipart/report.
使用限制：这应该是多部分/报告的第二部分。
Author: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
作者：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Change controller: IETF Standards Process
变更控制员：IETF标准流程
Automated use of report types without authentication presents several security issues. Forging negative reports presents the opportunity for denial-of-service attacks when the reports are used for automated maintenance of directories or mailing lists. Forging positive reports may cause the sender to incorrectly believe a message was delivered when it was not.
在不进行身份验证的情况下自动使用报表类型会带来几个安全问题。伪造负面报告在报告用于目录或邮件列表的自动维护时，会带来拒绝服务攻击的机会。伪造正面报告可能会导致发件人错误地认为邮件在未送达时已送达。
Malicious users can generate report structures designed to trigger coding flaws in report parsers. Report parsers need to use secure coding techniques to avoid the risk of buffer overflow or denial-of-service attacks against parser coding mistakes. Code reviews of such parsers are also recommended.
恶意用户可以生成旨在触发报告解析器中的编码缺陷的报告结构。报表解析器需要使用安全编码技术，以避免针对解析器编码错误的缓冲区溢出或拒绝服务攻击风险。还建议对此类解析器进行代码审查。
Malicious users of the email system regularly send messages with forged envelope return paths, and these messages trigger delivery status reports that result in a large amount of unwanted traffic on the Internet. Many users choose to ignore delivery status notifications because they are usually the result of "blowback" from forged messages and thus never notice when messages they sent go undelivered. As a result, support for correlation of delivery status and message disposition notification messages with sent-messages has become a critical feature of mail clients and possibly mail stores if the email infrastructure is to remain reliable. In the short term, simply correlating message-IDs may be sufficient to distinguish true status notifications from those resulting from forged originator addresses. But in the longer term, including cryptographic signature material that can securely associate the status notification with the original message is advisable.
电子邮件系统的恶意用户定期发送带有伪造信封返回路径的邮件，这些邮件会触发传递状态报告，从而在互联网上造成大量不必要的流量。许多用户选择忽略传递状态通知，因为它们通常是伪造邮件“回击”的结果，因此从不注意他们发送的邮件何时无法送达。因此，如果电子邮件基础结构要保持可靠，则支持传递状态和消息处置通知消息与已发送消息之间的关联已成为邮件客户端和可能的邮件存储的关键功能。在短期内，简单地关联消息ID可能足以区分真实状态通知和伪造的发起者地址产生的状态通知。但从长远来看，包括能够安全地将状态通知与原始消息关联的加密签名材料是可取的。
As this specification permits UTF-8 in additional fields, the security considerations of UTF-8 [RFC3629] apply.
由于本规范允许UTF-8用于其他领域，因此UTF-8[RFC3629]的安全注意事项适用。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 2001.
[RFC2821]Klensin，J.，“简单邮件传输协议”，RFC 28212001年4月。
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001.
[RFC2822]Resnick，P.，“互联网信息格式”，RFC 2822，2001年4月。
[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)", RFC 3461, January 2003.
[RFC3461]Moore，K.，“用于传递状态通知（DSN）的简单邮件传输协议（SMTP）服务扩展”，RFC 3461，2003年1月。
[RFC3462] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 3462, January 2003.
[RFC3462]Vaudreuil，G.“用于报告邮件系统管理消息的多部分/报告内容类型”，RFC 3462，2003年1月。
[RFC3464] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January 2003.
[RFC3464]Moore，K.和G.Vaudreuil，“交付状态通知的可扩展消息格式”，RFC 3464，2003年1月。
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3629]Yergeau，F.，“UTF-8，ISO 10646的转换格式”，STD 63，RFC 3629，2003年11月。
[RFC3798] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.
[RFC3798]Hansen，T.和G.Vaudreuil，“消息处置通知”，RFC 3798，2004年5月。
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5234]Crocker，D.和P.Overell，“语法规范的扩充BNF:ABNF”，STD 68，RFC 5234，2008年1月。
[RFC5335] Yang, A., Ed., "Internationalized Email Headers", RFC 5335, September 2008.
[RFC5335]Yang，A.，Ed.“国际化电子邮件头”，RFC 53352008年9月。
[RFC5336] Yao, J., Ed. and W. Mao, Ed., "SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Addresses", RFC 5336, September 2008.
[RFC5336]Yao，J.，Ed.和W.Mao，Ed.，“国际化电子邮件地址的SMTP扩展”，RFC 53362008年9月。
[LANGTAGS] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages", RFC 4646, September 2006.
[LANGTAGS]Phillips，A.和M.Davis，“识别语言的标记”，RFC 46462006年9月。
[DEFAULTLANG] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", RFC 2277, January 1998.
[DEFAULTLANG]Alvestrand，H.，“IETF字符集和语言政策”，RFC 22771998年1月。
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2045]Freed，N.和N.Borenstein，“多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）第一部分：Internet邮件正文格式”，RFC 20451996年11月。
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996.
[RFC2046]Freed，N.和N.Borenstein，“多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）第二部分：媒体类型”，RFC 20461996年11月。
[DOWNGRADE] Fujiwara, K. and Y. Yoneya, "Downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization", Work in Progress, July 2008.
[降级]Fujiwara，K.和Y.Yoneya，“电子邮件地址国际化的降级机制”，正在进行的工作，2008年7月。
Many thanks for input provided by Pete Resnick, James Galvin, Ned Freed, John Klensin, Harald Alvestrand, Frank Ellermann, SM, and members of the EAI WG to help solidify this proposal.
非常感谢Pete Resnick、James Galvin、Ned Freed、John Klensin、Harald Alvestrand、Frank Ellermann、SM和EAI工作组成员提供的意见，以帮助巩固该提案。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Chris Newman Sun Microsystems 800 Royal Oaks Monrovia, CA 91016-6347 US
克里斯纽曼太阳微系统800皇家橡树园蒙罗维亚，加利福尼亚州91016-6347美国
EMail: chris.newman@sun.com
EMail: chris.newman@sun.com
Alexey Melnikov (editor) Isode Ltd 5 Castle Business Village 36 Station Road Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX UK
亚历克赛·梅尔尼科夫（编辑）英国米德尔塞克斯郡汉普顿车站路36号城堡商业村5号Isode有限公司TW12 2BX
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2008年）。
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件及其包含的信息以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.