Network Working Group A.

Melnikov
Internet-Draft Isode Ltd
Intended status: Informational G. Lunt
Expires: December 21, 2013 A. Ross
SMHS Ltd
June 19, 2013

Military Message Handling System (MMHS) over SMTP

draft-melnikov-mmhs-profile-04

Abstract

A Military Message Handling System (MMHS) processes formal messages

ensuring release, distribution, security, and timely delivery across
national and international strategic and tactical networks. The MMHS
Elements of Service are defined as a set of extensions to the ITU-T
X.400 (1992) international standards and are specified in STANAG 4406
Edition 2 or ACP 123. This document specifies how a comparable
messaging service can be provided using SMTP and its extensions.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the

provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering

Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at [Link]

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months

and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2013.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust’s Legal

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
([Link] in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must

include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Elements of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Profile Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Basic Elements of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1. Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2. Content Type Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.3. Converted Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.4. Delivery Time Stamp Indication . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.5. MM Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.6. Message Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.7. Non-delivery Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.8. Original Encoded Information Types . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.9. Submission Time Stamp Indication . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.10. Typed Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.11. User/UA Capabilities Registration . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4. Optional Elements of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1. Alternate Recipient Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.2. Alternate Recipient Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.3. Authorizing Users Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.4. Auto-forwarded Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.5. Blind Copy Recipient Indication . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.6. Body Part Encryption Indication . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.7. Conversion Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.8. Conversion Prohibition in Case of Loss of Information 20
3.4.9. Cross Referencing Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.10. Deferred Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.11. Deferred Delivery Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.12. Delivery Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.13. Designation of Recipient by Directory Name . . . . . 21
3.4.14. Disclosure of Other Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.15. DL Expansion History Indication . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.16. DL Expansion Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.17. Expiry Date Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.18. Explicit Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.19. Forwarded MM Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.20. Grade of Delivery Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4.21. Hold for Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4.22. Incomplete Copy Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4.23. Language Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.4.24. Latest Delivery Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.4.25. Multi-destination Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.26. Multi-part Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.27. Non-receipt Notification Request Indication . . . . . 24
3.4.28. Obsoleting Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4.29. Originator Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4.30. Originator Requested Alternate Recipient . . . . . . 25
3.4.31. Prevention of Non-delivery Notification . . . . . . . 25
3.4.32. Primary and Copy Recipients Indication . . . . . . . 25
3.4.33. Receipt Notification Request Indication . . . . . . . 26
3.4.34. Redirection Disallowed by Originator . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.35. Redirection of Incoming Messages . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.36. Reply Request Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.37. Replying MM Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4.38. Requested Preferred Delivery Method . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4.39. Subject Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4.40. Use of Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5. Military Elements of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.1. Primary Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.2. Copy Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.3. Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.4. Exempted Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.5. Extended Authorization Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.6. Distribution Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5.7. Message Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5.8. Clear Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5.9. Other Recipient Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5.10. Originator Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5.11. Use of Address List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6. Transition Elements of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6.1. Handling Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6.2. Pilot Forwarded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6.3. Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.4. ACP 127 Message Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.5. Originator PLAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.6. Codress Message Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.7. ACP 127 Notification Request . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.8. ACP 127 Notification Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Security Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1. Elements of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.1. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.2. Authentication of Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.3. Non-repudiation of Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.4. Message Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.5. Message Data Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.6. Security Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.7. Non-repudiation of Receipt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.8. Secure Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

4.1.9. Message Counter Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.1.10. Certificate Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1.11. Compressed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2. Security Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2.1. S/MIME Cryptographic Message Syntax Content Types . . 35
4.2.2. S/MIME Triple Wrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.3. DKIM Digital Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.4. Security Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.5. Message Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. Requirements on Mail User Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1. Standards Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2. Audit Trail and Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6. Requirements on Mail Submission Agents . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.1. Standards Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2. Audit Trail and Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7. Requirements on Mail Transfer Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.1. Standards Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.2. Audit Trail and Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1. Introduction

A Military Message Handling System (MMHS) processes formal messages

ensuring release, distribution, security, and timely delivery across
national and international strategic and tactical networks. The MMHS
Elements of Service are defined as a set of extensions to the ITU-T
X.400 (1992) international standards and are specified in STANAG 4406
Edition 2 or ACP 123. This document specifies how a comparable
messaging service can be provided using Email Message Format
[RFC5322], SMTP [RFC5321] and their extensions.

[[TODO: Discuss MUA, MSA, MS and MTA. Are we going to cite IMAP/POP
standards?]]

2. Conventions Used in This Document

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].

3. Elements of Service

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.1. Introduction

The military messaging elements of service are adopted from [ACP123].

Many of these elements of service are derived from the X.400

standards upon which [ACP123] is based.

Note that some of the X.400 elements of service do not have an

equivalent in a SMTP messaging system. It is not the intention of
this profile to define additional SMTP functionality and consequently
a number of the military messaging elements of service are not
supported by this profile.

Specifically, the physical delivery, conversion (implicit or

explicit) and alternate recipient elements of service are not
supported by this profile.

This profile adopts, where appropriate, header fields that are

defined in [RFC2156] to support X.400 elements of service that
support military messaging elements of service. [RFC2156] has
already addressed the issue of conveying many of the X.400 elements
of service within an SMTP messaging system.

3.2. Profile Support

+-------------+---------+-------+--------+--------------------------+
| Element of | ACP123 | Suppo | IETF S | Header Field/Parameter |
| Service | Referen | rt | tandar | |
| | ce | | d | |
+-------------+---------+-------+--------+--------------------------+
| Access | 205a | MUST | N/A | N/A |
| Management | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.1) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Content | 205b | MUST | [RFC64 | MMHS-Extended- |
| Type | | | 77], | Authorization-Info |
| Indication | | | 3.2 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.2) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Converted | 205c | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Indication | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.3) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Delivery | 205d | MUST | [RFC53 | Received |
| Time Stamp | | | 22], | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| Indication | | | 3.6.7 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.4) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| MM Identifi | 205e | MUST | [RFC53 | Message-ID |
| cation | | | 22], | |
| (Section | | | 3.6.4 | |
| 3.3.5) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Message Ide | 205f | MUST | [RFC34 | ENVID |
| ntification | | | 61], | |
| (Section | | | 4.4 | |
| 3.3.6) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Non- | 205g | MUST | [RFC34 | NOTIFY=FAILURE |
| delivery No | | | 61], | |
| tification | | | 4.1 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.7) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Original | 205h | MAY | [RFC21 | Original-Encoded- |
| Encoded | | | 56], 2 | Information-Types |
| Information | | | .3.1.1 | |
| Types | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.8) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Submission | 205i | MUST | [RFC53 | Received |
| Time Stamp | | | 22], | |
| Indication | | | 3.6.7 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.9) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Typed Body | 205j | MUST | [RFC20 | Content-Type |
| (Section | | | 45], 5 | |
| 3.3.10) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| User/UA Cap | 205k | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| abilities R | | | | |
| egistration | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.3.11) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Alternate | 206a | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Recipient | | | | |
| Allowed | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.1) | | | | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| | | | | |
| Alternate | 206b | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Recipient | | | | |
| Assignment | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.2) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Authorizing | 206c | MUST | [RFC53 | From |
| Users | | | 22], | |
| Indication | | | 3.6.2 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.3) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Auto- | 206d | MAY | [RFC21 | Auto-forwarded |
| forwarded | | | 56], 2 | |
| Indication | | | .3.1.2 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.4) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Blind Copy | 206e | MUST | [RFC53 | Bcc |
| Recipient | | | 22], | |
| Indication | | | 3.6.3 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.5) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Body Part | 206f | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Encryption | | | | |
| Indication | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.6) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Conversion | 206g | MAY | [RFC21 | Conversion |
| Prohibited | | | 56], | |
| (Section | | | 5.3.6 | |
| 3.4.7) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Conversion | 206h | MAY | [RFC21 | Conversion-With-Loss |
| Prohibition | | | 56], | |
| in Case of | | | 5.3.6 | |
| Loss of | | | | |
| Information | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.8) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Cross | 206i | MAY | [RFC53 | References |
| Referencing | | | 22], | |
| Indication | | | 3.6.4 | |
| (Section | | | | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| 3.4.9) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Deferred | 206j | MAY | [RFC48 | HOLDUNTIL |
| Delivery | | | 65], | |
| (Section | | | 3.6.4 | |
| 3.4.10) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Deferred | 206k | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Delivery Ca | | | | |
| ncellation | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.11) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Delivery No | 206l | MUST | [RFC34 | NOTIFY=SUCCESS |
| tification | | | 61], | |
| (Section | | | 4.1 | |
| 3.4.12) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Designation | 206m | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| of | | | | |
| Recipient | | | | |
| by | | | | |
| Directory | | | | |
| Name | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.13) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Disclosure | 206n | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| of Other | | | | |
| Recipients | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.14) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| DL | 206o | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Expansion | | | | |
| History | | | | |
| Indication | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.15) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| DL | 206p | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Expansion | | | | |
| Prohibited | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.16) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Expiry Date | 206q | MUST | [RFC21 | Expires |
| Indication | | | 56], 2 | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| (Section | | | .3.1.2 | |
| 3.4.17) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Explicit | 206r | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Conversion | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.18) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Forwarded | 206s | MUST | [RFC20 | Content-Type: |
| MM | | | 46], | message/rfc822 |
| Indication | | | 5.2 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.19) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Grade of | 206t | MUST | [RFC67 | MT-Priority |
| Delivery | | | 58] | |
| Selection | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.20) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Hold for | 206u | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Delivery | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.21) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Incomplete | 206v | MAY | [RFC21 | Incomplete-Copy |
| Copy | | | 56], 2 | |
| Indication | | | .3.1.2 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.22) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Language | 206w | MAY | [RFC32 | Content-Language |
| Indication | | | 82], 2 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.23) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Latest | 206x | MUST | [RFC28 | BY |
| Delivery | | | 52], 4 | |
| Designation | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.24) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Multi- | 206y | MUST | [RFC53 | RCPT TO |
| destination | | | 21], | |
| Delivery | | | 2.1 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.25) | | | | |
| | | | | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| Multi-part | 206z | MUST | [RFC20 | Content-Type: |

| Body | | | 46], | multipart/mixed |
| (Section | | | 25.1.3 | |
| 3.4.26) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Non-receipt | 206aa | MUST | [RFC37 | Disposition- |
| Notificatio | | | 98], | Notification-To |
| n Request | | | 2.1 | |
| Indication | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.27) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Obsoleting | 206ab | MAY | [RFC21 | Supersedes |
| Indication | | | 56], 2 | |
| (Section | | | .3.1.2 | |
| 3.4.28) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Originator | 206ac | MUST | [RFC53 | Sender |
| Indication | | | 22], | |
| (Section | | | 3.6.2 | |
| 3.4.29) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Originator | 206ad | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Requested | | | | |
| Alternate | | | | |
| Recipient | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.30) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Prevent of | 206ae | MAY | [RFC34 | NOTIFY=NEVER |
| Non- | | | 61], | |
| delivery No | | | 4.1 | |
| tification | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.31) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Primary and | 206af | MAY | [RFC53 | To, Cc |
| Copy | | | 22], | |
| Recipients | | | 3.6.3 | |
| Indication | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.32) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Receipt Not | 206ag | MUST | [RFC37 | Disposition- |
| ification | | | 98], | Notification-To |
| Request | | | 2.1 | |
| Indication | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| 3.4.33) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Redirection | 206ah | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Disallowed | | | | |
| By | | | | |
| Originator | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.34) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Redirection | 206ai | N/A | [RFC52 | N/A |
| of Incoming | | | 28], | |
| Messages | | | 4.2? | |
| (Section | | | Maybe? | |
| 3.4.35) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Reply | 206ab | N/A | [RFC53 | N/A |
| Request | | | 22] - | |
| Indication | | | no req | |
| (Section | | | uestin | |
| 3.4.36) | | | g mech | |
| | | | anism | |
| | | | | |
| Replying MM | 206ak | MUST | [RFC21 | In-Reply-To |
| Indication | | | 56], | |
| (Section | | | 3.6.4 | |
| 3.4.37) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Requested | 206al | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Preferred | | | | |
| Delivery | | | | |
| Method | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.38) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Subject | 206am | MAY | [RFC21 | Subject |
| Indication | | | 56], | |
| (Section | | | 3.6.5 | |
| 3.4.39) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Use of Dist | 206an | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ribution | | | | |
| List | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.4.40) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Primary | 212a | MUST | [RFC64 | MMHS-Primary-Precedence |
| Precedence | | | 77], | |
| (Section | | | 3.8 | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| 3.5.1) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Copy | 212b | MUST | [RFC64 | MMHS-Copy-Precedence |
| Precedence | | | 77], | |
| (Section | | | 3.9 | |
| 3.5.2) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Message | 212c | MUST | [RFC64 | MMHS-Message-Type |
| Type | | | 77], | |
| (Section | | | 3.10 | |
| 3.5.3) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Exempted | 212d | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Exempted-Address |
| Addresses | | | 77], | |
| (Section | | | 3.1 | |
| 3.5.4) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Extended Au | 212e | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Extended- |
| thorization | | | 77], | Authorisation-Info |
| Info | | | 3.2 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.5.5) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Distributio | 212f | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Subject-Indicator- |
| n Code | | | 77], | Codes |
| (Section | | | 3.3 | |
| 3.5.6) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Message Ins | 212g | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Message- |
| tructions | | | 77], | Instructions |
| (Section | | | 3.5 | |
| 3.5.7) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Clear | 212h | MAY | [RFC26 | eSSSecurityLabel, SIO- |
| Service | | | 34], 3 | Label |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.5.8) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Other | 212i | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Other-Recipient- |
| Recipient | | | 77], | Indicator-To, MMHS- |
| Indicator | | | 3.11 | Other-Recipients- |
| (Section | | | 3.12 | Indicator-CC |
| 3.5.9) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Originator | 212j | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Originator-Address |
| Reference | | | 77], | |
| (Section | | | 3.7 | |
| 3.5.10) | | | | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| | | | | |
| Use of | 212k | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| Address | | | | |
| List | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.5.11) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Handling In | 213a | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Handling- |
| structions | | | 77], | Instructions |
| (Section | | | 3.4 | |
| 3.6.1) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Pilot | 213b | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Forwarded | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.6.2) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Corrections | 213c | TBD | appror | TBD |
| (Section | | | iate | |
| 3.6.3) | | | MIME | |
| | | | type? | |
| | | | | |
| ACP 127 | 213d | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Acp127-Message- |
| Message | | | 77], | Identifier |
| Identifier | | | 3.13 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.6.4) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Originator | 213e | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Originator-PLAD |
| PLAD | | | 77], | |
| (Section | | | 3.14 | |
| 3.6.5) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Codress | 213f | MAY | [RFC64 | MMHS-Codress-Message- |
| Message | | | 77], | Indicator |
| Indicator | | | 3.6 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.6.6) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| ACP 127 Not | 213g | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ification | | | | |
| Request | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 3.6.7) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| ACP 127 Not | 213h | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| ification | | | | |
| Response | | | | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| (Section | | | | |
| 3.6.8) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Access | Annex | MAY | TBD | TBD |
| Control | B, 7.1 | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.1) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Authenticat | Annex | MAY | [RFC56 | SignedData |
| ion of | B, 7.2 | | 52], 5 | |
| Origin | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.2) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Non- | Annex | MAY | [RFC56 | SignedData |
| repudiation | B, 7.3 | | 52], 5 | |
| of Origin | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.3) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Message | Annex | MUST | [RFC56 | SignedData |
| Integrity | B, 7.4 | | 52], 5 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.4) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Message | Annex | MAY | [RFC56 | EnvelopedData |
| Data | B, 7.5 | | 52], 6 | |
| Separation | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.5) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Security | Annex | MUST | [RFC26 | ESSSecurityLabel |
| Labels | B, 7.6 | | 34], 3 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.6) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Non- | Annex | MAY | [RFC26 | ReceiptRequest |
| repudiation | B, 7.7 | | 34], 2 | |
| of Receipt | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.7) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Secure | Annex | MAY | [RFC26 | MLExpansionHistory |
| Mailing | B, 7.8 | | 34], 4 | |
| Lists | | | | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.8) | | | | |
| | | | | |

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

| Message | Annex | MAY | [RFC56 | counterSignature |

| Counter | B, 7.9 | | 52], | |
| Signature | | | 11.4 | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.9) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Certificate | Annex | MAY | [RFC26 | SigningCertificate |
| Binding | B, 7.10 | | 34], | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.10) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| Compressed | Annex | MAY | [RFC32 | CompressedData |
| Data | B, 7.11 | | 74] | |
| (Section | | | | |
| 4.1.11) | | | | |
+-------------+---------+-------+--------+--------------------------+

3.3. Basic Elements of Service

3.3.1. Access Management

This element of service enables an Mail User Agent and an Mail

Transfer Agent to establish access and manage information associated
with access establishment. This includes the ability to identify and
validate the identity of the other.

Strong authentication in the bind operation is mandatory. Strong

authentication MUST be supported using SMTP Extension for
Authentication [RFC4954] and SMTP Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS
[RFC3207].

[[Q: Do we need to identify the SASL mechanisms to use here?]]

3.3.2. Content Type Indication

This element of service enables an originating Mail User Agent to

indicate the type of each submitted message. In most cases, the
content type will be obvious from the header fields that are present.

A Military Message MUST be indicated using the MMHS-Extended-

Authorization-Info header field defined in [RFC6477].

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.3.3. Converted Indication

[[TBD]]

3.3.4. Delivery Time Stamp Indication

This element of service indicates to each recipient Mail User Agent

(i.e., on a per-recipient basis), the date and time at which the Mail
Transfer Agent delivered a message.

The delivery time stamp MUST be determined from the first Received
header field, defined in [RFC5322], present in the message.

3.3.5. MM Identification

This element of service enables cooperating Mail User Agents to

convey a globally unique identifier for each Military Message sent or
received. This identifier is used in subsequent messages to identify
the original Military Message.

A Military Message MUST be uniquely identified using the Message-ID

header field defined in [RFC5322].

3.3.6. Message Identification

This element of service is used by Mail User Agents and the Mail
Transfer Agents to refer to a previously submitted message in
connection with other elements of service such as delivery and non-
delivery notification.

Message Identification MUST be specified by the Mail User Agent using

the ENVID parameter, as defined in [RFC3461]. The Mail Transfer
Agent MUST return the message identification in the Original-
Envelope-Id field of a message/delivery status as defined in
[RFC3461].

3.3.7. Non-delivery Notification

This element of service allows a Mail User Agent to ask for the MTS
to notify the originator if a submitted message was not delivered to
the specified recipient Mail User Agent. The MMHS must, with a high
degree of certainty, deliver a message to the intended recipient(s).
If the system cannot deliver a message within a determined period of
time , a non-delivery report will be returned to the originating Mail
User Agent by the MMHS. The non-delivery report contains information
to enable it to be mapped to the appropriate message (i.e., the
message identification), recipient information, as well as
information about why the message could not be delivered.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

Non-Delivery notifications MUST be generated in accordance with

[RFC3461].

Note that non-delivery notifications are requested on a per message

basis in this profile, and not on a per recipient basis as defined in
[ACP123].

3.3.8. Original Encoded Information Types

This element of service enables the originating Mail User Agent to

indicate the various formats of the bodyparts of a message.

The Original Encoded Information Types, if present, MUST use the

Original-Encoded-Information-Types header field as defined in
[RFC2156].

3.3.9. Submission Time Stamp Indication

This element of service enables the Message Transfer Agent to

indicate to the originating Mail User Agent and each recipient Mail
User Agent the date and time at which is which was submitted to the
Message Transfer Agent.

The Submission Time Stamp Indication MUST use the determined from the
last Received header field, as defined in [RFC5322], present in the
message. Note that this is distinct from the Date header field,
defined in [RFC5322], which is more likely to be displayed by a
receiving Mail User Agent but which indicates the date and time at
which the originator of the message indicated that the message was
complete and ready to submitted.

3.3.10. Typed Body

This element of service allows the nature of attributes of the body

of the message to be conveyed along with the body.

3.3.11. User/UA Capabilities Registration

[[TBD: do we want to talk about IMAP?]]

3.4. Optional Elements of Service

3.4.1. Alternate Recipient Allowed

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

This element of service enables an originating Mail User Agent to

specify that the message being submiited can be redirected to an
alternate recipient. Unless an originator specifically request that
an alternate recipient be disallowed, all Military Messages will
indicate that an alternate recipient is allowed.

There is no current SMTP service that supports allows the originator

to disallow the redirection of a message to an alternate recipient.
Therefore this profile does not support the Alternate Recipient
Allowed element of service. [[ We could refer to MIXER field to
allow control within X.400 domains, even though not supported within
SMTP domains?]]

3.4.2. Alternate Recipient Assignment

This element of service enables a receiving Mail User Agent to be

given the capability to have certain messages delivered to it for
which there is not an exact match between the recipient address
specified in the message and the valid addresses within the recipient
domain. This service allows a message that would otherwise be
undeliverable to be delivered to a "default mailbox" within the
recipient domain.

There is no current SMTP service that supports allows the Alternate

Recipient Assignment element of service. Therefore this profile does
not support the Alternate Recipient Assignment element of service.
Note that some Mail Transfer Agent products may provide propriertary
mechanisms that support the element of service.

3.4.3. Authorizing Users Indication

This element of service allows the originator to indicate to the

recipient the names or one or more persons who authorized the sending
of the messages.

The Authorizing Users Indication MUST use the From header field, as
defined in [RFC5322], present in the message and in addition the
Sender header field (carrying the Originator Indication) MUST also be
present in accordance with [RFC2156].

3.4.4. Auto-forwarded Indication

This element of service allows a recipient to determine that the body

of an incoming Military Message contains a Military Message that has
been auto-forwarded by an autonomous Mail Submission Agent. This is
used to distinguish the incoming Military Message that contains a
Military Message that was manually forwarded by the original
recipient. If automatic forwarding of Military Messages is supported

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

by a Mail Submission Agent, then the Auto-forwarded Indication MUST

be supported on origination.

The Auto-forwared Indication MUST use the Autoforwarded header field,

as defined in [RFC2156].

3.4.5. Blind Copy Recipient Indication

This element of service enable the originator to provide the address

of one or more additional intended recipients of the message being
sent. These names are not disclosed to the primary, copy or other
blind copy recipients. This service can be used to keep some
recipient names and addressed hidden from other recipients. This
service can be used to send a courtesy copy to drafters or reviewers
of a message, when internal information, such as who drafted or
reviewed the message, is not to be disclosed to the recipient(s).
Separate copies of the mesage MUST be submitted to the Mail Transfer
Agent for the open recipients (primary and copy recipients) and for
each blind copy recipient. The messages sent to each of blind copy
recipients MUST contain same MM Identification as the message sent to
the open recipients.

The Blind Copy Recipient Indication MUST use the Bcc header field, as
defined in [RFC5322].

3.4.6. Body Part Encryption Indication

This element of service allows the originator to indicate to the

recipient that a particular body of the message has been sent
encrypted.

There is no current SMTP service that supports allows the Body Part
Encryption Indication element of service. Therefore this profile
does not support the Body Part Encryption Indication element of
service. [[Refer to whole message encryption options]].

3.4.7. Conversion Prohibited

This element of service enables an originating Mail User Agent to

instruct the Mail Transfer Agent that the implicit conversion of the
military message should not be performed.

This element of service is not supported by an SMTP Mail Transfer

Agent. A Mail User Agent MAY use the Conversion header field, as
defined in [RFC2156] to control the conversion to an X.400 message at
a MIXER gateway and further within the X.400 domain at X.400 Mail
Transfer Agents.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.4.8. Conversion Prohibition in Case of Loss of Information

This element of service enables and originating Mail User Agent to

instruct the Mail Transfer Agent that the implicit conversion of the
military message should not be performed, if such conversion would
result in the loss of information.

This element of service is not supported by an SMTP Mail Transfer

Agent. A Mail User Agent MAY use the Conversion-With-Loss header
field, as defined in [RFC2156] to control the conversion to an X.400
message at a MIXER gateway and further within the X.400 domain at
X.400 Mail Transfer Agents.

3.4.9. Cross Referencing Indication

This element of service allows the originator to associate the

globally unique identifiers of one or more other messages with the
message being sent. This enables the recipient’s Mail User Agent,
for example, to retrieve a copy of the referenced messages.

The Cross Referencing Indication MUST use the References header

field, as defined in [RFC5322].

3.4.10. Deferred Delivery

This element of service enables an originating Mail User Agent to

instruct the Mail Transfer Agent that a military message being
submitted shall be delivered no sooner than a specified date and
time. When this service is requested, it MUST be logged for audit
and tracing purposes.

Deferred Delivery MUST be specified in accordance with [RFC4865]

3.4.11. Deferred Delivery Cancellation

This element of service enables an orginating MUA to instruct the MTA

to cancel a previously submitted military message that contained a
Deferred Delivery date and time.

Deferred Delivery Cancellation is not supported by this profile.

3.4.12. Delivery Notification

This element of service enables the originating MUA to request that

the originating MUA be explicitly notified when a submitted military
message has been successfully delivered to a recipient MUA. This
notification is convered by a delivery report. The delivery report
is related to the submitted mesages by means of a message identifier

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

and includes the date and time of delivery. Receipt of a delivery

report at the originating MUA results in the the generation of a
delivery notification to the originator. In the case of multi-
destination military messages, this service shall be selectable on a
per recipient basis.

This element of service MUST be supported using the NOTIFY parameter

of the ESMTP RCPT command with as value of SUCCESS, as defined in
[RFC3461].

Note that while this element of service is selectable on a per

recipient basis, an MUA MAY only allow it to be selected on a per
message basis.

3.4.13. Designation of Recipient by Directory Name

This element of service enables an originating UA to use, on a per-

recipient basis, a directory name in place of an individual
recipient’s address. This implies the support of a directory
service. The directory name must be translated to an email address
for delivery to take place. However, the directory lookup may take
place at the MTA rather than at the MUA.

Designation of Recipient by Directory Name is not suppoted by this

profile.

However the designation of a recipient by a directory name MAY be

supported by a MUA that can retrieve an address from a directory
service.

3.4.14. Disclosure of Other Recipients

This element of service enables the originating MTA to instruct the

MTS to disclose the address of all other recipient of a multi-
recipient military message to each recipient MUA, upon delivery of
the message. The addresses disclosed are as supplied by the
originating MUA or the results of address list expansion.

Disclosure of Other Recipients is not supported by this profile.

3.4.15. DL Expansion History Indication

This element of service provides information to a recipient about the

DL(s) that resulted in the message being delivered to this recipient.
This element of service also provides a mechanism to protect against
potential nested DL looping.

[[What are we going to do here?]]

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

The DL-Expansion-History header defined in [RFC2156] SHALL NOT be

used. DL-Expansion-History header MAY be present in messages
gatewayed from X.400.

3.4.16. DL Expansion Prohibited

This element of service allows an originating user to specify that if

any of the recipient names can directly, or be reassignment, refer to
a distribution, then no expansion of the distribution shall occur.
Instead, a non-delivery notification shall be returned to the
originating Mail User Agent.

[[What are we going to do here?]]

3.4.17. Expiry Date Indication

This element of service allows the originator to indicate to the

recipient the date and time after which the message is considered
invalid. The intent of this element of service is to state the
originator’s assessment of the current applicability of a message.
If the Expiry Date Indication is present, it shall be displayed to
the recipients(s) to indicate the time after which this message
should be longer be acted upon. It is left to the discretion of the
recipient as to whether or not the message is discarded.

The Expiry Date Indication element of service, if supported by the

MMHS, SHALL use the Expires header field, as defined in [RFC2156]

3.4.18. Explicit Conversion

This element of service enables an originating MUA to request, on a

per-recipient basis, that the MTA perform a specified Encoded
Information Type conversion.

Explicit Conversion is not supported by this profile.

3.4.19. Forwarded MM Indication

This element of service allows an message, plus its delivery

information to be sent as a body part inside another message. In a
multi-part body the forwarded message may be one of serveral body
parts of various types.

The Forwarded MM Indication element of service, if supported by the

MMHS, SHALL use the Content Type header field, as defined in
[RFC2045] with the value "message/rfc822" and use the Content Type
Indication, as defined in Section 3.3.2, within the headers of the
embedded message.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.4.20. Grade of Delivery Selection

3.4.21. Hold for Delivery

This element of service enables a recipient MUA to request that the

MTA hold its MMHS messages and returning notifications for delivery
until a later time. The MUA can indicate to the MTA when it is
unavailable to take delivery of messages and notifications, and also,
when it is again ready to accept delivery of messages and
notifications from the MTA. The MTA can indicate to the MUA that
messages are waiting due to the criteria the MUA established for
holding messages. The MMHS message will be held until the maximum
delivery time for that MMHS message expires, unless the recipient
releases the hold prior to its expiry.

There is no current SMTP service that supports the Hold for Delivery
element of service. Therefore this profile does not support this
element of service.

However, this element of service MAY be partially supported by MTA

products that provide proprietary mechanisms to schedule delivery
times based on MMHS message size and MMHS message priority.

3.4.22. Incomplete Copy Indication

This element of service allows an originator to indicate that this

MMHS message is an incomplete copy of a MMHS message with the same
Message-ID header field in that one or more body parts or header
fields of the original MMHS message are absent.

The Incomplete Copy Indication element of service MAY be supported by

the MMHS, using the Incomplete-Copy header field, as defined in
[RFC2156].

3.4.23. Language Indication

This element of service enables an originating MUA to indicate the

language type(s) of a submitted message.

The Language Indication element of service MAY be supported by the

MMHS, using the Content-Language header field, as defined in
[RFC3282].

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.4.24. Latest Delivery Designation

This element of service enables an originating MUA to specify the

latest time by which the MMHS message is to be delivered. If the MTA
cannot deliver by the time specified, the MMHS message is canceled
and a non-delivery report returned to the originating MUA.

The Latest Delivery Designation element of service MUST be supported

by the MMHS as defined in the Deliver By SMTP extension [RFC2852].

3.4.25. Multi-destination Delivery

3.4.26. Multi-part Body

3.4.27. Non-receipt Notification Request Indication

This element of service allows the originator to ask, on a per-

recipient basis, for notification if the MMHS message is deemed
unreceivable by any of the recipients.

The Non-Receipt Notification Request Indication MUST be supported by

the MMHS, using the Disposition-Notification-To header field as
defined in [RFC3798].

In the case where the Non-Receipt Notification Request Indication

element of service is required for a subset of the recipients the MSA
MUST: submit a MMHS message to those recipients that a non-receipt
notification is requested with a Disposition-Notification-To header
field; and, submit a MMHS message(s) to those recipients that a non-
receipt notification is not requested without a Disposition-
Notification-To header field.

Note that while this element of service is selectable on a per

recipient basis, an MUA MAY only allow it to be selected on a per
message basis.

Note that this element of service will be supported in conjunction

with the Receipt Notification Request Indication as profiled in
Section 3.4.33.

3.4.28. Obsoleting Indication

This element of service allows the originator to indicate to the

recipient that one or more previously sent MMHS messages are
obsolete. The intention of this element of service is for the MUA to
display to the user reading the original MMHS message that the
original MMHS message is obsolete. It is the responsibility of the
user for discarding the original MMHS message.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

The Obsoleting Indication element of service MAY be supported by the

MMHS, using the Supersedes header field, as defined in [RFC2156].

3.4.29. Originator Indication

The Originator Indication MUST use the From header field, as defined
in [RFC5322], when the Authorizing Users Indication is present in the
message, and the Sender header field, as defined in [RFC5322], when
the Authorsing Users Indication is not present in the message. This
conditional use of different header fields is required to support
interoperability with [ACP123] and [STANAG-4406] X.400 systems that
utilise a MIXER compliant gateway, [RFC2156].

3.4.30. Originator Requested Alternate Recipient

This element of service enables the originating MUA to specify, for

each intended recipient, one alternate recipient to whom the MTA can
deliver the message, if delivery to the intended recipient is not
possible. This service allows a MMHS message that would otherwise be
delayed or non-delivered to be delivered to an alternative message
recipient.

There is no current SMTP service that supports the Originator

Requested Alternate Recipient element of service. Therefore this
profile does not support this element of service. Note that some
MTAs may provide propriertary mechanisms that support this element of
service.

3.4.31. Prevention of Non-delivery Notification

This element of service enables an originating MUA to instruct a MTA

not to return a non-delivery report to the originating MUA in the
event that the message being submitted is judged undeliverable.

This element of service MUST be supported by the MMHS, using the

NOTIFY parameter of the ESMTP RCPT command with as value of NEVER, as
defined in [RFC3461].

Note that while this element of service is selectable on a per

recipient basis, an MUA MAY only allow it to be selected on a per
message basis.

3.4.32. Primary and Copy Recipients Indication

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

Primary and Copy recipients, within the MMHS, are known as action and
information addressees, respectively. A primary recipient has a
responsibility to act upon a delivered MMHS message, whereas a Copy
recipient has been sent the MMHS message for information purposes
only.

The Primary and Copy Recipients Indication element of service MUST be

supported by the MMHS, using the To and Cc header fields,
respectively, as defined in [RFC5322].

3.4.33. Receipt Notification Request Indication

This element of service allows the originator of a MMHS message to

request, on a per-recipient basis, for notification when a particular
MMHS message is received. The recipient MUA MUST prominently display
the request for this element of service and permit the recipient to
honour the request or reject the request.

The Receipt Notification Request Indication MUST be supported by the

MMHS, using the Disposition-Notification-To header field as defined
in [RFC3798].

In the case where the Receipt Notification Request Indication element

of service is required for a subset of the recipients the MSA MUST:
submit a MMHS message to those recipients that a receipt notification
is requested with a Disposition-Notification-To header field; and,
submit a MMHS message(s) to those recipients that a receipt
notification is not requested without a Disposition-Notification-To
header field.

Note that while this element of service is selectable on a per

recipient basis, an MUA MAY only allow it to be selected on a per
message basis.

Note that this element of service will be supported in conjunction

with the Receipt Notification Request Indication as profiled in
Section 3.4.27.

In the case where the MMHS supports S/MIME security services profiled
in Section 4 the originating MUA MAY use the Non-repudiation of
Receipt element of service as specified in Section 4.1.7.

3.4.34. Redirection Disallowed by Originator

This element of service enables an originating MUA to instruct the

MTA that redirection should not be applied to a particular submitted
MMHS message.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

There is currently no SMTP service that supports this element of

service. Therefore, the Redirection Disallowed by Originator element
of service is not supported by this profile.

3.4.35. Redirection of Incoming Messages

This element of service enables a MUA to instruct the MTA to redirect

incoming MMHS messages addressed to it, to another MUA or to an
Address List (AL), for a specified period of time, or until revoked.

There is currently no SMTP service that supports this element of

service. Therefore the Redirection of Incoming Messages element of
service is not supported by this profile. However, note that some
MTA/MDA products MAY be able to enforce a local security policy
supporting this element of service with proprietary mechanisms.

3.4.36. Reply Request Indication

This element of service allows the originator to request, on a per-

recipient basis, that a recipient send a message in reply to the MMHS
message that carries the request. The originator can also optionally
specify the date by which any reply should be sent and the names of
one or more users and ALs who the originator requests be included
among the preferred recipients of any reply.

The Reply Request Indication element of service is not supported by

this profile.

This element of service MAY be procedurally defined by a MMHS. Hence

the Reply Request Indication MAY be supported by including the
request within the body of the MMHS message.

Blind Copy recipients of the MMHS message, that includes support for
this element of service within the message body, SHOULD be careful to
consider the recipients of the reply MMHS message honoring the Blind
Copy Recipient Indication element of service profiled in
Section 3.4.5.

3.4.37. Replying MM Indication

This element of service allows the originator of a MMHS message to

indicate to the recipients that the message is being sent in reply to
another MMHS message.

The Replying MM Indication element of service MAY be supported by the

MMHS, using the In-Reply-To header field as defined in [RFC5322].

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.4.38. Requested Preferred Delivery Method

This element of service allows an originator to request, on a per-

recipient basis, the preference of method or methods of delivery.

Requested Preferred Delivery Method is not supported by this profile.

3.4.39. Subject Indication

This element of service allows the originator to indicate to the

recipient(s) a user specified short description of the message.

The Subject Indication element of service MUST be supported by the

MMHS, using the Subject header field as defined in [RFC5322].

3.4.40. Use of Distribution List

3.5. Military Elements of Service

This section profiles the MMHS Header Fields for use in the MMHS as
specified in [RFC6477].

3.5.1. Primary Precedence

The MMHS-Primary-Precedence header field defined in [RFC6477] MUST be

supported by the MMHS if the military message contains "To:"
("action") addresses.

3.5.2. Copy Precedence

The MMHS-Copy-Precedence header field defined in [RFC6477] MUST be

supported by the MMHS if the military message contains "Cc:" or
"Bcc:" ("information") addresses.

3.5.3. Message Type

The MMHS-Message-Type header field defined in [RFC6477] MUST be

supported by the MMHS.

3.5.4. Exempted Addresses

The MMHS-Exempted-Address header field defined in [RFC6477] MAY be

supported by the MMHS.

3.5.5. Extended Authorization Info

The MMHS-Extended-Authorisation-Info header field defined in

[RFC6477] MUST be supported by the MMHS.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

3.5.6. Distribution Code

The MMHS-Subject-Indicator-Codes header field defined in [RFC6477]

MUST be supported by the MMHS.

3.5.7. Message Instructions

The MMHS-Message-Instructions header field defined in [RFC6477] MAY

be supported by the MMHS.

3.5.8. Clear Service

This element of service indicates to the recipient that the military

message containing classified information has been transmitted over
non-secure communications links. This element of service, if
permitted by the security policy, MAY be supported by using the
printable string "CLEAR" in the privacy mark component of the
security label (see Section 4.1.6) along with an appropriate security
policy identifier. If this element of service is supported by the
MMHS, the MUA MUST prominently display to the user that the military
message has been transmitted over non-secure communication links.

3.5.9. Other Recipient Indicator

The MMHS-Other-Recipients-Indicator-To and MMHS-Other-Recipients-

Indicator-CC header fields defined in [RFC6477] MAY be supported by
the MMHS.

3.5.10. Originator Reference

The MMHS-Originator-Reference header field defined in [RFC6477] MAY

be supported by the MMHS.

3.5.11. Use of Address List

The Address List Indication element of service is not supported by

this profile.

3.6. Transition Elements of Service

3.6.1. Handling Instructions

The MMHS-Handling-Instructions header field defined in [RFC6477] MAY

be supported by the MMHS only to support interoperability with ACP
127 systems.

3.6.2. Pilot Forwarded

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

The Pilot Forwarded element of service is not supported by this

profile.

3.6.3. Corrections

The Corrections element of service MAY be supported by this profile.

[[Define new MIME type?]]

3.6.4. ACP 127 Message Identifier

The MMHS-Acp127-Message-Identifier header field defined in [RFC6477]

MAY be supported by the MMHS only to support interoperability with
ACP 127 systems.

3.6.5. Originator PLAD

The MMHS-Originator-PLAD header field defined in [RFC6477] MAY be

supported by the MMHS only to support interoperability with ACP 127
systems.

3.6.6. Codress Message Indicator

The MMHS-Codress-Message-Indicator header field defined in [RFC6477]

MAY be supported by the MMHS only to support interoperability with
ACP 127 systems.

3.6.7. ACP 127 Notification Request

The ACP 127 Notification Request element of service is not supported

by this profile.

3.6.8. ACP 127 Notification Response

The ACP 127 Notification Response element of service is not supported

by this profile.

4. Security Services

An MMHS MAY support security services. The security services

specified in this profile are based on the Secure Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) protocols and DomainKeys Identified
Mail (DKIM) Signatures specified in [RFC6376]. The S/MIME protocols
Message Specification [RFC5751], Cryptographic Message Syntax
[RFC5652] and Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME [RFC2634] specify
a consistent way to securely send and receive MIME messages providing
end to end integrity, authentication, non-repudiation and
confidentiality. DKIM’s primary purpose is to define an
organization-level digital signature authentication framework for

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

Internet email, using public key cryptography and using the domain
name service as its key server technology. However, it is possible
to administer DKIM to support user-level signature granularity. This
section describes the elements of service and profiles the use of
[RFC5751], [RFC5652], [RFC2634] and [RFC6376].

4.1. Elements of Service

The security services and the implementation requirements to ensure

interoperability of the security solution for the MMHS are detailed
below.

4.1.1. Access Control

This element of service provides a means of enforcing the

authorization of users to originate and receive messages. Access
controls are performed in each MMHS domain in accordance with the
security policy in force. MMHS systems MAY enforce their own native
security policies, plus any other security policies that have been
bilaterally agreed.

An MMHS providing the access control element of service MUST perform

access control decisions based on comparing the sensitivity
information conveyed in a security label with a user’s
authorizations.

4.1.2. Authentication of Origin

This element of service provides assurance that the message was

originated by the user indicated as the sender by digitally signing
the message. However, it must be noted that the implementation of
the MMHS security services is dependent upon the security and
assurance requirements that are to be met by those MMHS security
services. As such, the identity of the signer of the MMHS message
may be the user, the role the user is performing or the organization
the user belongs to.

If the MMHS provides security services it MUST support the

Authentication of Origin element of service.

The MMHS SHOULD implement this element of service on origination

supporting the SignedData content type (profiled in Section [Link])
to apply a digital signature to a MMHS message or, in a degenerate
case where there is no signature information, to convey certificates.

Alternatively the MMHS MAY implement this element of service on

origination supporting DKIM (profiled in Section 4.2.3) to apply a
digital signature to a MMHS message.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

On reception the MMHS MUST support S/MIME and DKIM digital

signatures.

4.1.3. Non-repudiation of Origin

This element of service provides the recipient with evidence that

demonstrates, to a third-party, who originated the message, and will
protect against any attempt by the message originator to falsely deny
having sent the message. However, it must be noted that the
implementation of the MMHS security services is dependent upon the
security and assurance requirements that are to be met by those MMHS
security services. As such, the identity of the signer of the MMHS
message may be the user, the role the user is performing or the
organization the user belongs to.

If the MMHS provides security services it MUST support the Non-

repudiation of Origin element of service.

The MMHS SHOULD implement this element of service on origination as

profiled in Section [Link].

Alternatively the MMHS MAY implement this element of service on

origination supporting DKIM (profiled in Section 4.2.3) to apply a
digital signature to a MMHS message.

On reception the MMHS MUST support S/MIME and DKIM digital

signatures.

4.1.4. Message Integrity

This element of service provides a method of ensuring the content

that was received by the recipient(s) is the same as that which was
sent by the originator. However, it must be noted that the
implementation of the MMHS security services is dependent upon the
security and assurance requirements that are to be met by those MMHS
security services. As such, the identity of the signer of the MMHS
message may be the user, the role the user is performing or the
organization the user belongs to.

If the MMHS provides security services it MUST support the Message

Integrity element of service.

The MMHS SHOULD implement this element of service on origination as

profiled in Section [Link].

Alternatively the MMHS MAY implement this element of service on

origination supporting DKIM (profiled in Section 4.2.3) to apply a
digital signature to a MMHS message.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

On reception the MMHS MUST support S/MIME and DKIM digital

signatures.

4.1.5. Message Data Separation

This element of service protects against unauthorized disclosure of

the message, and separates data contained in one message from that
contained in another message. This element of service can help to
enforce need to know restrictions, or enables multiple different user
communities to share the same secure network. The service is
independent of the network and systems transporting the message.

The MMHS MAY implement this element of service supporting the

EnvelopedData content type (profiled in Section [Link]) to apply
privacy protection to a message. A sender needs to have access to a
public key for each intended message recipient to use this service.
This content type does not provide authentication.

4.1.6. Security Labels

This element of service provides a method for associating security

labels with objects in the MMHS. This then allows a security policy
to define what entities can handle messages containing associated
security labels. The security label associated with a message MUST
indicate the security policy to be followed along with the
sensitivity, compartments, and other handling caveats associated with
the message. This element of service can be used for purposes such
as access control or a source of routing information.

If the MMHS supports security services then the MMHS MUST implement
this element of service as profiled in Section 4.2.4.

4.1.7. Non-repudiation of Receipt

This element of service provides the originator with evidence that

demonstrates, to a third-party, who received the message, and will
protect against any attempt by the message recipient to falsely deny
having received the message. This evidence is the signed receipt,
which includes a digital signature and the certificates necessary to
verify it.

The MMHS MAY implement this element of service supporting the

ReceiptRequest attribute as specified in [RFC2634] Section 2.

4.1.8. Secure Mailing Lists

This element of service allows a Mail List Agent (MLA) to take a

single message, perform recipient-specific security processing, and

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

then redistributes the message to each member of the Address List

(AL) or Mail List (ML).

The MMHS MAY implement this element of service supporting the

mlExpansionHistory attribute as specified in [RFC2634] Section 4.

4.1.9. Message Counter Signature

This element of service allows multiple signatures to be applied to

the original signature value in a sequential manner. Thus, the
Message Counter-signature service allows supervising users or release
authorities to countersign for an originator without invalidating the
original signature.

The MMHS MAY implement this element of service supporting the

countersignature attribute as specified in [RFC5652] Section 11.4.

4.1.10. Certificate Binding

This element of service allows for a certificate, which is sent with

the message to be cryptographically bound to the message.

The MMHS MAY implement this element of service supporting the

SigningCertificate attribute as specified in [RFC2634] Section 5.
The SigningCertificate attribute SHOULD only contain the leaf end-
user certificate except where some prior agreement (possibly
bilateral) exists to ensure that path validation is not adversely
affected. Differing treatment in [RFC2634] Section 5.3, paragraph 3
avoids impact to path validation if only the leaf certificate is
included.

4.1.11. Compressed Data

This element of service reduces message size, which helps to protect

MMHS availability and may provide an element of robustness in the
event of denial of service attacks.

If the MMHS provides security services it MUST support the Compressed

Data element of service.

The MMHS SHOULD include support for the Compressed Data content type
on origination as profiled in Section [Link].

Alternatively the MMHS MAY support the application/zlib and

application/gzip MIME media types on origination as defined in
[RFC6713].

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

On reception the MMHS MUST support the Compressed Data content type,
application/zlib media type and application/gzip media type.

4.2. Security Profile

This section profiles the use of the S/MIME protocols [RFC5751],

[RFC5652] and [RFC2634] and DKIM protocol [RFC6376] for adding
cryptographic services to the MMHS. The relevant sections of
[RFC5751], [RFC5652], [RFC2634] and [RFC6376] are listed with further
clarifications and amendments specific to the implementation of an
MMHS conformant with this security profile.

This security profile is aligned with the "Profile for the Use of the
Cryptographic Message Syntax FO(CMS) and Enhanced Security Services
(ESS) for S/MIME", [STANAG-4631].

4.2.1. S/MIME Cryptographic Message Syntax Content Types

If the MMHS supports the S/MIME protocols for implementing the

security elements of services then the MMHS MUST support the Data,
SignedData, EnvelopedData, and CompressedData content types as
specified in [RFC5751].

In accordance with [RFC5652] ContentInfo MUST be supported to

encapsulate the outer most SignedData or EnvelopedData content type.
Conventions for inner wrappers MUST comply with [RFC5751].

The clarifications and refinements are as follows:

o The ContentInfo contentType field MUST be supported.

o The ContentInfo content field MUST be supported.

[Link]. Data Content Type

The MMHS MUST use the id-data content type identifier to identify the
"inner" MIME message content as specified in [RFC5751].

[Link]. Signed-data Content Type

The signedData content type is specified in [RFC5652] Section 5,

consisting of MIME content (identified by the id-data content type)
and zero or more signature values.

[Link].1. SignedData Type

The MMHS MUST support the SignedData type as specified in [RFC5652]

Section 5.1. The clarifications and refinements are as follows:

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 35]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

o The MMHS MUST support the EncapsulatedContentInfo type

eContentType attribute. The value of the eContentType MUST be id-
data unless the content is compressed according to
Section [Link].

o The MMHS MUST support the EncapsulatedContentInfo type eContent

attribute. The value of the eContent MUST contain the content to
be signed. If the content is compressed using the compressed-data
content type as defined in Section [Link], the
[Link] MUST be set to the
id-data content type identifier of the compressed MIME content and
the [Link] MUST contain the MIME
content to be compressed and protected by S/MIME.

o The MMHS MUST support X.509 version 3 certificates. An MMHS with

high throughput MUST include certificates within the message. An
MMHS with impoverished communications SHOULD NOT send certificates
with the message.

o The MMHS MUST support the certificate profile and CRL profile
specified in [RFC5280] [RFC6818].

o The MMHS MUST support X.509 version 3 certificate processing

specified in [RFC5750].

[Link].2. SignerInfo Type

The SignerInfo type is specified in [RFC5652] Section 5.3 allowing

the inclusion of unsigned and signed attributes along with a
signature. The clarifications and refinements are as follows:

o The MMHS MUST support signed attributes. As a minimum the MMHS

MUST support processing and handling of the following signed
attributes: contentType ([RFC5751] Section 2.5.1);
eSSSecurityLabel ([RFC2634] Section 3.2; messageDigest ([RFC5652]
Section 11.2); signingTime ([RFC5751] Section 2.5.1);
sMIMECapabilities ([RFC5751] Section 2.5.2); and,
sMIMEEncryptionKeyPreference ([RFC5751] Section 2.5.3).

o The MMHS MUST support the conventions for using the Secure Hash
Algorithm (SHA) message digest algorithms and signature algorithms
as specified in [RFC5754] and [RFC5751].

o The MMHS MUST support both the SignerIdentifier type attributes

issuerAndSerialNumber and subjectKeyIdentifier.

[Link]. Enveloped-data Content Type

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 36]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

The envelopedData content type is specified in [RFC5652] Section 6,

consisting of an encrypted MIME content (identified by the id-data
content type) and encrypted content-encryption keys for one or more
recipients.

[Link].1. EnvelopedData Type

The MMHS MUST support the EnvelopedData type as specified in

[RFC5652] Section 6.1. The clarifications and refinements are as
follows:

o The MMHS MUST support the EncryptedContentInfo type eContentType

attribute. The value of the eContentType MUST be id-data unless
the content is compressed according to Section [Link].

o The MMHS MUST support the EncryptedContentInfo type eContent

attribute. The value of the eContent MUST contain the content to
be encrypted. If the content is compressed using the compressed-
data content type as defined in Section [Link], the
[Link] MUST be set to the
id-data content type identifier of the compressed MIME content and
the [Link] MUST contain the MIME
content to be compressed and protected by S/MIME.

o The MMHS MUST support the originatorInfo attribute if required by

the key-management algorithm (refer to Section [Link].1.1).

o The MMHS MUST support X.509 version 3 certificates. An MMHS with

high throughput MUST include certificates within the message. An
MMHS with impoverished communications SHOULD NOT send certificates
with the message.

o The MMHS MUST support the certificate profile and CRL profile
specified in [RFC5280] [RFC6818].

o The MMHS MUST support X.509 version 3 certificate processing

specified in [RFC5750].

[Link].1.1. RecipientInfo Type

The RecipientInfo type is specified in [RFC5652] Section 6.2. The

clarifications and refinements are as follows:

o The MMHS MAY support KeyTransRecipientInfo.

o The MMHS MUST support KeyAgreeRecipientInfo. The originatorKey

attribute MUST be supported as the choice for the originator to
specify the sender’s key agreement public key.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 37]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

o The MMHS MAY support KEKRecipientInfo.

o The MMHS MAY support PasswordRecipientinfo.

o The MMHS MAY support OtherRecipientInfo.

[Link]. Compressed-Data Content Type

The MMHS MUST support the compressedData content type as specified in

[RFC3274].

[Link].1. CompressedData Type

In the cases where the MMHS uses compressedData, it MUST only be used
once for every message and MUST only be used around the content of
the innermost security wrapper.

4.2.2. S/MIME Triple Wrapping

If the MMHS supports S/MIME protocols for providing the security

elements of services (defined in this profile) the MMHS MUST support
military messages that are triple wrapped or signed only. A triple
wrapped message is one that has been signed, then encrypted, then
signed again. The signers of the inner and outer signatures may be
different entities or the same entity. If a military message is
triple wrapped, the SignedData and EnvelopedData wrappers MUST follow
the specifications described in Section [Link] and Section [Link]
of this profile, respectively.

4.2.3. DKIM Digital Signatures

DKIM defines an organization-level digital signature authentication

framework for Internet email, using public key cryptography and using
the domain name service as its key server technology. However, it is
possible to administer DKIM to support user-level signature
granularity. This profile specifies the use of DKIM defined in
[RFC6376] for providing an alternative security mechanism to S/MIME
to deliver the mandatory security elements of service to the MMHS.
However, the implementation of DKIM is dependent upon the security
and assurance requirements that are to be met by the MMHS security
services. As such, an MMHS MUST implement DKIM (to apply digital
signatures for the MMHS message header fields and message body) to
meet those security and assurance requirements based on one of the
following profiles:

1. Share the organization signing identity (identified by the

Signing Domain Identifier (SDID)) private key for signing the
MMHS message header fields. The MMHS message header fields are

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 38]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

digitally signed by the organization MSA component. This profile

does not provide end to end security services. This profile
supports organization to organization message integrity,
authentication and non-repudiation security services.

2. Share the organization signing identity private key for signing

the MMHS message header fields. The email address of the MMHS
message originator can be specified as the Agent or User
Identifier (AUID). The semantics for performing per-user
identity differentiation with this approach MUST be agreed out-
of-band and is outside the scope of this profile. The MMHS
message header fields are digitally signed by the organization
MSA component. This profile does not provide end to end security
services. This profile supports organization to organization
message integrity, authentication and non-repudiation security
services.

3. Generate per-user public/private key pairs where the public key

is published to distinct subdomains (of the organization domain).
The MMHS message is signed with the user’s private key and the
signing identity is identifiable by the user’s subdomain value in
the SDID. The MMHS message header fields are digitally signed by
the MUA. This profile supports end to end originator
authentication, message integrity, and non-repudiation security
services.

4. Generate per-user public/private key pairs where the public key

is published to a unique resource record under the organization
domain. The MMHS message is signed with the user’s private key
and the signing identity is identifiable by the domain value in
the SDID and the unique resource record identified by the
selector value. The MMHS message header fields are digitally
signed by the MUA. This profile supports end to end originator
authentication, message integrity, and non-repudiation security
services.

To provide organization to organization security services: the

recipient MUA SHOULD support DKIM digital signature verification or
the MUA MUST support the Authentication-Results header field as
specified in [RFC5451] according to the security policy; and the
organization border MTA or MDA MUST support DKIM digital signature
verfication and output the verification results (according to the
security policy) to the Authentication-Results header field compliant
with [RFC5451].

To provide end to end security services the recipient MUA MUST

support DKIM digital signature verification specified in [RFC6376].

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 39]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

DKIM does not provide confidentiality security services.

4.2.4. Security Labels

If the MMHS supports S/MIME protocols for implementing security

services then the MMHS MUST support on origination the
ESSSecurityLabel specified in Section 3 of [RFC2634]. The MMHS MUST
support the security-policy-identifier, security-classification,
privacy-mark and security-categories attributes of the
ESSSecurityLabel. The MMHS MAY support the Equivalent Security
Labels EquivalentLabels as specified in [RFC2634] Section 3.4.

An MMHS MAY on origination support the SIO-Label header field as

specified in [[i-d ref]].

On reception the MMHS MUST support the ESSSecurityLabel and SIO-

Label. In the case where a military message contains a SIO-Label and
an ESSSecurityLabel the MMHS MUST assert that the policy conveyed in
both are the same and that the sensitivity, compartments, and other
handling caveats that can be conveyed in both are the same.

4.2.5. Message Header Fields

By default, [RFC5751] secures MIME message body parts, excluding the

message header fields. If the MMHS implements S/MIME security
services then the MMHS MUST provide a mechanism for securing the
message header fields. [RFC5751] includes a mechanism for protecting
the header fields where the whole message is wrapped in a message/
rfc822 MIME media type. However, this approach can be problematic
for non-S/MIME aware MUAs and does not provide a mechanism for
signing a subset of message header fields.

If the MMHS provides security services this profile requires that the
MMHS MUST support DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
profiled in Section 4.2.3 for digitally signing the MMHS message
header fields.

The MMHS MUST include at least the following header fields to be

signed:

o From

o Reply-To

o Subject

o Date

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 40]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

o To, Cc, Bcc (if present)

o Expires

o Message-ID

o SIO-Label (if present)

o MMHS-Primary-Precedence (if present), MMHS-Copy-Precedence (if

present), MMHS-Message-Type, MMHS-Extended-Authorisation-Info

DKIM does not provide confidentiality security services.

5. Requirements on Mail User Agents

5.1. Standards Compliance

A Mail User Agent (MUA) compliant with this specification MUST

support

1. Internet Message Format [RFC5322].

2. Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [RFC2045] [RFC2046]

[RFC2047] [RFC2049]. [[Maybe be a bit more specific about what
is required?]]

3. Parsing, processing and having the ability to generate MMHS

header fields [RFC6477].

4. The ability to insert MT-Priority header field [RFC6758].

5. Parsing and processing of Multipart/Report Content Type for the

Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages [RFC6522]
containing message/delivery-status [RFC3464] and Message
Disposition Notification (MDN) [RFC3798].

6. The ability to request an MDN and the ability to generate an MDN

in response to a request [RFC3798].

7. The ability to send and receive signed and encrypted S/MIME

messages [RFC5652] [RFC5751].

8. The ability to send and receive ESS Security Labels [RFC2634].

MUA can also take advantage of SMTP extensions advertised by MSAs

(see Section 6).

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 41]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

5.2. Audit Trail and Logging

6. Requirements on Mail Submission Agents

6.1. Standards Compliance

In addition to the list of requirements specified in [RFC6409], an

Mail Submission Agent (MSA) compliant with this specification MUST
support:

1. SMTP Extension for Authentication [RFC4954].

2. SMTP Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS [RFC3207].

3. SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes

[RFC2034].

4. Deliver By SMTP Service Extension [RFC2852].

5. SMTP extension for Message Transfer Priorities. [RFC6710]

"STANAG4406" Priority Assignment Policy MUST be advertised in
the EHLO response. The MSA MUST be able to handle the MT-
Priority header field as specified in [RFC6758].

6. SMTP extension for for Delivery Status Notifications [RFC3461].

7. SMTP Extension for 8-bit MIME transport [RFC6152].

8. SMTP Extension for Message Size Declaration [RFC1870].

9. SMTP Extension for Command Pipelining [RFC2920].

10. SMTP Extensions for Transmission of Large and Binary MIME

Messages [RFC3030].

The following SMTP extensions are OPTIONAL to support in MSAs

compliant with this specification:

1. SMTP Submission Service Extension for Future Message Release

[RFC4865].

6.2. Audit Trail and Logging

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 42]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

7. Requirements on Mail Transfer Agents

7.1. Standards Compliance

A Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) compliant with this specification MUST

support

1. SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced Error Codes

[RFC2034].

2. Deliver By SMTP Service Extension [RFC2852].

3. SMTP extension for Message Transfer Priorities [RFC6710].

"STANAG4406" Priority Assignment Policy MUST be advertised in the
EHLO response. The MTA MUST be able to handle the MT-Priority
header field as specified in [RFC6758].

4. SMTP extension for for Delivery Status Notifications [RFC3461].

5. SMTP Extension for 8-bit MIME transport [RFC6152].

6. SMTP Extension for Message Size Declaration [RFC1870].

7. SMTP Extension for Command Pipelining [RFC2920].

8. SMTP Extensions for Transmission of Large and Binary MIME

Messages [RFC3030].

The following SMTP extensions SHOULD be supported in MTAs compliant

with this specification:

1. SMTP Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS [RFC3207].

7.2. Audit Trail and Logging

8. IANA Considerations

This document doesn’t ask for any action from IANA.

9. Security Considerations

TBD

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 43]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

10. References

10.1. Normative References

[RFC2033] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,

October 1996.

[RFC2034] Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced

Error Codes", RFC 2034, October 1996.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service

Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)", RFC
3461, January 2003.

[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,

October 2008.

[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,

October 2008.

[RFC6409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",

STD 72, RFC 6409, November 2011.

[RFC1870] Klensin, J., Freed, N., and K. Moore, "SMTP Service

Extension for Message Size Declaration", STD 10, RFC 1870,
November 1995.

[RFC2852] Newman, D., "Deliver By SMTP Service Extension", RFC 2852,

June 2000.

[RFC2920] Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Command

Pipelining", STD 60, RFC 2920, September 2000.

[RFC3030] Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission

of Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 3030, December
2000.

[RFC4865] White, G. and G. Vaudreuil, "SMTP Submission Service

Extension for Future Message Release", RFC 4865, May 2007.

[RFC6152] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., and D. Crocker, "SMTP
Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport", STD 71, RFC
6152, March 2011.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 44]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

[RFC4954] Siemborski, R. and A. Melnikov, "SMTP Service Extension

for Authentication", RFC 4954, July 2007.

[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002.

[RFC6477] Melnikov, A. and G. Lunt, "Registration of Military

Message Handling System (MMHS) Header Fields for Use in
Internet Mail", RFC 6477, January 2012.

[RFC6710] Melnikov, A. and K. Carlberg, "Simple Mail Transfer

Protocol Extension for Message Transfer Priorities", RFC
6710, August 2012.

[RFC6758] Melnikov, A. and K. Carlberg, "Tunneling of SMTP Message

Transfer Priorities", RFC 6758, October 2012.

[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail

Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail

Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.

[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)

Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, November 1996.

[RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail

Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.

[RFC6713] Levine, J., "The ’application/zlib’ and ’application/gzip’

Media Types", RFC 6713, August 2012.

[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,

Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

[RFC6818] Yee, P., "Updates to the Internet X.509 Public Key

Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 6818, January 2013.

[RFC2634] Hoffman, P., "Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME", RFC

2634, June 1999.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 45]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,

RFC 5652, September 2009.

[RFC5751] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet

Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message
Specification", RFC 5751, January 2010.

[RFC5754] Turner, S., "Using SHA2 Algorithms with Cryptographic

Message Syntax", RFC 5754, January 2010.

[RFC5750] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet

Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Certificate
Handling", RFC 5750, January 2010.

[RFC3274] Gutmann, P., "Compressed Data Content Type for

Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3274, June 2002.

[RFC3464] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format

for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January
2003.

[RFC6522] Kucherawy, M., "The Multipart/Report Media Type for the

Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", STD 73,
RFC 6522, January 2012.

[RFC3798] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition

Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.

[RFC3282] Alvestrand, H., "Content Language Headers", RFC 3282, May

2002.

[RFC5228] Guenther, P. and T. Showalter, "Sieve: An Email Filtering

Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.

[RFC5451] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating

Message Authentication Status", RFC 5451, April 2009.

[RFC2156] Kille, S., "MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay):

Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME", RFC 2156, January
1998.

[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Hansen, T., and M. Kucherawy, "DomainKeys

Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376, September
2011.

[ACP123] CCEB, ., "Common Messaging Strategy and Procedures", ACP

123, May 2009.

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 46]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

10.2. Informative References

[RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, July

2009.

[STANAG-4406]
NATO, ., "STANAG 4406 Edition 2: Military Message Handling
System", STANAG 4406, March 2005.

[STANAG-4631]
NATO, ., "STANAG 4631 Edition 1: Profile for the Use of
the Cryptographic Message Syntax FO(CMS) and Enhanced
Security Services (ESS) for S/MIME", STANAG 4631, June
2008.

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

Many thanks for input provided by Steve Kille and David Wilson.

Authors’ Addresses

Alexey Melnikov
Isode Ltd
5 Castle Business Village
36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
UK

EMail: [Link]@[Link]

Graeme Lunt
SMHS Ltd
Bescar Moss Farm
Bescar Lane
Ormskirk L40 9QN
UK

EMail: [Link]@[Link]

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 47]

Internet-Draft MMHS over SMTP June 2013

Alan Ross
SMHS Ltd
Bescar Moss Farm
Bescar Lane
Ormskirk L40 9QN
UK

EMail: [Link]@[Link]

Melnikov, et al. Expires December 21, 2013 [Page 48]