home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1994 March
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso
/
inet
/
internet-drafts
/
draft-onions-mappingulian,
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-09-02
|
12KB
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08398;
2 Sep 93 12:24 EDT
Received: from [128.243.9.1] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21047; 2 Sep 93 12:24 EDT
Received: from nexor.co.uk (actually tornado.nexor.co.uk)
by lancaster.nexor.co.uk with SMTP (PP);
Thu, 2 Sep 1993 17:24:31 +0100
To: internet-drafts@nri.reston.va.us
Subject: Inclusion
X-Phone: +44 602 514590
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1993 17:24:25 +0100
Message-ID: <904.746987065@nexor.co.uk>
From: Julian Onions <j.onions@nexor.co.uk>
Please could you include the following as an Internet draft.
Thanks,
Julian.
Internet Draft
Mapping between X.400 P772 and RFC-822
Graeme Lunt
Julian Onions
NEXOR Ltd
Oct 92
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are valid for a maximum of six months and may be
updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. (The
file 1id-abstracts.txt on nic.ddn.mil describes the current status of
each Internet Draft.) It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as a "work in
progress".
2. Abstract
This document describes an proposed standard to allow the exchange of
P772 military X.400 mail to RFC-822 text based mail. This allows
gateways to convert between the two provided certain criteria are
met.
3. Introduction
RFC-822 defines a protocol for the format of electronic messages
exchanged on the Internet. This protocol is text based an in very
common usage.
P772 is a military specification defined in STANAG 4406 which defines
a number of extensions to the basic X.400 (1988) protocol for the
services required by military mail. The extensions are fairly small
and do not impact on security, which is already covered in X.400.
This document is concerned with P772 version 1.0 published on
December 6, 1991. A set of possible syntaxes for version 1.4 which is
currently in draft status is included as in this document.
This document allows where possible the mapping of the service ele-
ments between the two protocols. As RFC-822 does not have all the
services that P772 supports, this mapping mostly enables the
Lunt, Onions Expires March 30, 1994 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT P772 to RFC822 Mapping Oct 92
intentions to be passed through the gateway so that RFC-822 reci-
pients can view them. There is obviously no way a user with a stan-
dard RFC-822 based user agent can take action on these. This document
is built on and extends the RFC-1327 X.400 mapping specifically for
the P772 attributes.
The document is primarily aimed at the ability to represent P772 mes-
sages in RFC-822, although it does allow RFC-822 users limited access
to P772 features.
This mapping also allows a message that travels P772 - RFC-822 - P772
to mostly recover the original elements of service. Where new RFC-822
Headers are defined they are prefixed with the string P772- to dis-
tinguish them from any other extensions.
It is unclear how much traffic there will be between the communities
using P772 and the existing RFC-822 community at this time. However,
such a document as this allows implementors of RFC-1327 based gate-
ways to "do something sensible" on the receipt of a P772 format mes-
sage.
4. MTA Mappings
P772 only defines one extra element of service at the P1 or MTA
level. This is Priority-Level-Qualifier. This is reversibly mapped
into the new address header field P772-Priority-Level-Qualifier.
This field has the syntax of a labelled-integer described in RFC-
1327. It can have the values of
low (0)
high (1)
or for extensibility just a number
(3)
(5)
When reversing the mapping, just the number should be used.
5. MTS Mappings
P772 defines a number of extra elements to the basic P2 Header struc-
ture. These are principally mapped into new header fields in RFC-822.
These are discussed in turn. If any of these features are used, a new
header field must be introduced into the RFC-822 address
P772-Version: 1.0
Lunt, Onions Expires March 30, 1994 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT P772 to RFC822 Mapping Oct 92
This identifies the version of P772 that is being carried.
Exempted-Address.
This is mapped into the new RFC-822 field P772-Exempted-Address.
It has a syntax of a sequence of strings, which are separated by
the
P772-Exempted-Address: Captain Picard & Worf & Tasha Ya
More formally this is defined as a printable-string-sequence by
the following EBNF.
printable-string-sequence ::=
printablestring [ "&" printable-string-sequence ]
Extended-Authorisation-Info
This is mapped into the new RFC-822 field P772-Extended-
Authorisation-Info. It has a syntax of 822.date-time, and is
mapped in the manner described in RFC-1327. Examples might
include
P772-Extended-Authorisation-Info:
Thu, 2 Sep 1993 08:58:50 +0100
Distribution-Codes
This is mapped into the new RFC 822 field
P772-Distribution-Codes.
It has a syntax composed of the following BNF
distribution-code ::= sic-sequence "&" dist-code-sequence
sic-sequence ::= sic [ "#" sic-sequence ]
sic ::= printablestring
dist-code-sequence ::= dist-code [ "#" dist-code-sequence ]
dist-code ::= printablestring
An example might be
P772-Distribution-Codes: ABC # DEF &
USS-Enterprise # USS-Intrepid
Handling-Instructions
This is mapped into the new RFC-822 field P772-Handling-
Instructions. It has the syntax printable-string-sequence as
defined above. An example might be
Lunt, Onions Expires March 30, 1994 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT P772 to RFC822 Mapping Oct 92
P772-Handling-Instructions: beam down to planet & await instructions
Message-Instructions
This is mapped into the new RFC-822 field P772-Message-
Instructions. The syntax is again printable-string-sequence.
An example might be
P772-Message-Instructions: Take out of space pod & reconstitute
Codress-Message
This is mapped into the new RFC-822 header field P772-Codress-
Message. It has a syntax of EBNF.numericstring as defined in
RFC-1327
P772-Codress-Message: 23
OriginatorIdentifier
This is mapped into the new RFC-822 field P772-Originator-
Identifier. It has a syntax of printablestring
P772-Originator-Identifier: Mr Data
PrimaryPrecedence / CopyPrecedence
These attributes use the same syntax of labelled-integer and are
encoded into the new RFC-822 heading fields
P772-Primary-Precedence: deferred(0)
P772-Copy-Precedence: flash(4)
MessageType
This is encoded into the new RFC-822 field P772-Message-Type.
It has a syntax described by the following EBNF.
int-and-printablestring ::=
labelled-integer [ "=" printablestring ]
The printablestring component is optional in this attribute, and
may be missed off if not present.
P772-Message-Type: exercise(0) = space manoeuvre
OtherRecipientIndicator
Lunt, Onions Expires March 30, 1994 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT P772 to RFC822 Mapping Oct 92
This is mapped into the new header field P772-Other-Recipient-
Indicator. It has a syntax as follows
int-and-ps-list ::=
int-and-printablestring [ "&" int-and-ps-list ]
And example of this might be
P772-Other-Recipient-Indicator:
information (0) = Commander W. Riker, Star Base XII &
action (1) = Lt. LaForge, Planet Recon Party
AcpMessageIdentifier
This is mapped into the new RFC-822 header field P772-Acp-
Message-Identifier. The syntax is a simple printablestring
P772-Acp-Message-Identifier:
41153.7.bridge.enterprise.sector34.milkyway
OriginatorPLAD
This is mapped into a new RFC-822 field with syntax printable-
string.
P772-Originator-PLAD: Captains Chair, bridge, USS enterprise.
AddressListIndicator
Mapped into a new header field P772-Address-List-Indicator.
This has the following EBNF syntax.
address-list-indicator::=
int-and-printablestring "#"
[ labelled-integer ] "#"
[ labelled-integer ]
[ "&" address-list-indicator ]
This might result in the header field
P772-Address-List-Indicator:
primaryAddressList (0) = ships-crew # action(0) # info(1)
PilotForwardingInfo
Mapped into a new header field P772-Pilot-Forwarding-Info. It
has a syntax of
Lunt, Onions Expires March 30, 1994 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT P772 to RFC822 Mapping Oct 92
pilot-info ::=
labelled-integer "="
[ recipientlist ] "#"
[ printablestring *[ "%" printablestring ] ]
recipientlist ::= ??? [ "%" recipientlist ]
If the security label is present, then this element cannot be
translated. In this case it is probably best to generate a
delivery report. The definition of Recipient does not seem to
be defined.
P772-Pilot-Forwarding-Info:
routine(1) = ???? # transport % open on planet
6. Mappings for the proposed 1.4 version of P772.
There are not many changes need to encompass the proposed changes to
1.4. The possible syntaxes that change are defined here. If 1.4 mes-
sages are being converted, a header of
P772-Version: 1.4
must be inserted.
DistributionCodes
This mapping would be as before, except there is no second set
of strings. If the extensions in this X.400 element are present,
this is not mapped. The message may be rejected if required.
Alternatively, a gateway may implement specific extensions only.
AddressListIndicator
The ORDescriptor present in this new attribute, will be mapped
as in RFC-1327 but will otherwise use the same mapping as above.
ACP127NotificationRequest
This can be mapped into RFC-822 Header of P772-ACP127-
Notification-Request. The syntax will be a comma separated list
of bits, in labelled-integer format.
P772-ACP127-Notification-Request: acp127-nn
Acp127NotificationResponse
This can be mapped into the RFC-822 Header
P772-ACP127-Notification-Response.
The syntax is as follows
acp127notificationresponse ::=
Lunt, Onions Expires March 30, 1994 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT P772 to RFC822 Mapping Oct 92
1*labelled-integer "#"
822.date-time "#"
[ printablestring ] "#" ; Acp127Recipient
[ printablestring ] "#" ; Acp127SuppInfo
address-list-indicator
The two printable strings are the Acp127Recipient and
Acp127SuppInfo elements respectively.
7. Security Considerations
Security considerations are not discussed in this document.
8. Authors' Addresses
Graeme Lunt <g.lunt@nexor.co.uk>
Julian Onions <j.onions@nexor.co.uk>
NEXOR Ltd
PO Box 132
Nottingham
NG7 2UU
Lunt, Onions Expires March 30, 1994 [Page 7]