home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group D. Robinson
- Request for Comments: 1154 R. Ullmann
- Prime Computer, Inc.
- April 1990
-
-
- Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
-
- 1. Status of the Memo
-
- This RFC proposes an elective experimental Encoding header field to
- permit the mailing of multi-part, multi-structured messages.
-
- The use of Encoding updates RFC 1049 (Content-Type), and is a
- suggested update to RFCs 1113, 1114, and 1115 (Privacy Enhancement)
- [4,7,8].
-
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- 2. Introduction
-
- RFC 822 [2] defines an electronic mail message to consist of two
- parts, the message header and the message body, separated by an
- apparently blank line.
-
- The Encoding header field permits the message body itself to be
- further broken up into parts, each part also separated from the next
- by an apparently blank line.
-
- Thus, conceptually, a message has a header part, followed by one or
- more body parts, all separated by blank lines.
-
- Each body part has an encoding type. The default (no Encoding field
- in the header) is a message body of one part of type "text".
-
- 3. The Encoding Field
-
- The Encoding field consists of one or more subfields, separated by
- commas. Each subfield corresponds to a part of the message, in the
- order of that part's appearance. A subfield consists of a line
- count, a keyword defining the encoding, and optional information
- relevant only to the specific encoding. The line count is optional
- in the last subfield.
-
- 3.1. Format of the Encoding Field
-
- The format of the Encoding field is:
-
-
-
-
- Robinson & Ullmann [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1154 Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages April 1990
-
-
- [<count> <keyword> [<options>], ]* [<count>] <keyword> [<options>]
-
- where:
-
- <count> := a decimal integer
- <keyword> := a single alphanumeric token starting with an alpha
- <options> := keyword-dependent options
-
- 3.2. <count>
-
- The line count is a decimal number specifying the number of text
- lines in the part. Parts are separated by a blank line, which is not
- included in the count of either the proceeding or following part.
- Because a count always begins with a digit and a keywords always
- begins with an letter, it is always possible to determine if the
- count is present. (The count is first because it is the only
- information of interest when skipping over the part.)
-
- The count is not required on the last or only part.
-
- 3.3. <keyword>
-
- The keyword defines the encoding type. The keyword is a common
- single word name for the encoding type. The keywords are not case-
- sensitive.
-
- The list of standard keywords is intended to be the same as the list
- used for the Content-Type: header described in [6]. This RFC
- proposes additions to the list. Implementations can then treat
- "Content-Type" as an alias of "Encoding", which will always have only
- one body part.
-
- 3.4. <options>
-
- The optional information is used to specify additional keyword-
- specific information needed for interpreting the contents of the
- encoded part. It is any sequence of tokens not containing a comma.
-
- 3.5. Encoding Version Numbers
-
- In general, version numbers for encodings, when not actually
- available within the contents of the encoded information, will be
- handled as options.
-
- 3.6. Comments
-
- Comments enclosed in parentheses may, of course, be inserted anywhere
- in the Encoding field. Mail reading systems may pass the comments to
-
-
-
- Robinson & Ullmann [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1154 Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages April 1990
-
-
- their clients. Comments must not be used by mail reading systems for
- content interpretation; that is the function of options.
-
- 4. Encodings
-
- This section describes some of the defined encodings used.
-
- As with the other keyword-defined parts of the header format
- standard, extensions in the form of new keywords are expected and
- welcomed. Several basic principles should be followed in adding
- encodings:
-
- - The keyword should be the most common single word name for the
- encoding, including acronyms if appropriate. The intent is that
- different implementors will be likely to choose the same name for
- the same encoding.
-
- - Keywords not be too general: "binary" would have been a bad
- choice for the "hex" encoding.
-
- - The encoding should be as free from unnecessary idiosyncracies
- as possible, except when conforming to an existing standard, in
- which case there is nothing that can be done.
-
- - The encoding should, if possible, use only the 7 bit ASCII
- printing characters if it is a complete transformation of a source
- document (e.g., "hex" or "uuencode"). If it is essentially a text
- format, the full range may be used. If there is an external
- standard, the character set may already be defined.
-
- Keywords beginning with "X-" are permanently reserved to
- implementation-specific use. No standard registered encoding keyword
- will ever begin with "X-".
-
- 4.1. Text
-
- This indicates that the message is in no particular encoded format,
- but is to be presented to the user as is.
-
- The full range of the ASCII character set is used. The message is
- expected to consist of lines of reasonable length (less than 1000
- characters).
-
- On some transport services, only the 7 bit subset of ASCII can be
- used. Where full 8 bit transparency is available, the text is
- assumed to be ISO 8859-1 [3] (ASCII-8).
-
-
-
-
-
- Robinson & Ullmann [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1154 Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages April 1990
-
-
- 4.2. Message
-
- This encoding indicates that the body part is itself in the format of
- an Internet message, with its own header part and body part(s). A
- "message" body part's message header may be a full internet message
- header or it may consist only of an Encoding field.
-
- Using the message encoding on returned mail makes it practical for a
- mail reading system to implement a reliable resending function, if
- the mailer generates it when returning contents. It is also useful
- in a "copy append" MUA operation.
-
- Message encoding is also used when mapping to X.400 to handle
- recursively included X.400 P2 messages.
-
- 4.3. Hex
-
- The encoding indicates that the body part contains binary data,
- encoded as 2 hexadecimal digits per byte, highest significant nibble
- first.
-
- Lines consist of an even number of hexadecimal digits. Blank lines
- are not permitted. The decode process must accept lines with between
- 2 and 1000 characters, inclusive.
-
- 4.4. EVFU
-
- EVFU (Electronic Vertical Format Unit) specifies that each line
- begins with a one-character "channel selector". The original purpose
- was to select a channel on a paper tape loop controlling the printer.
-
- This encoding is sometimes called "FORTRAN" format. It is the default
- output format of FORTRAN programs on a number of computer systems.
-
- The legal characters are '0' to '9', '+', '-', and space. These
- correspond to the 12 rows (and absence of a punch) on a printer
- control tape (used when the control unit was electromechanical).
-
- The channels that have generally agreed definitions are:
-
- 1 advances to the first print line on the next page
- 0 skip a line, i.e., double-space
- + over-print the preceeding line
- - skip 2 lines, i.e., triple-space
- (space) print on the next line, single-space
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Robinson & Ullmann [Page 4]
-
- RFC 1154 Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages April 1990
-
-
- 4.5. EDI
-
- The EDI (Electronic Document Interchange) keyword indicates that the
- message or part is a business document, formatted according to ANSI
- X12 or related standards.
-
- The first word after the EDI keyword indicates the particular
- interchange standard.
-
- A message containing a note and 2 X12 purchase orders might have an
- encoding of:
-
- Encoding: 17 TEXT, 146 EDI X12, 69 EDI X12
-
- 4.6. X.400
-
- The Encoding header field provides a mechanism for mapping multi-part
- messages between CCITT X.400 [1] and RFC 822.
-
- The X.400 keyword specifies a section that is converted from an X.400
- body part type not known to the gateway, or not corresponding to a
- useful internet encoding.
-
- If the message transits another gate, or if the receiving user has
- the appropriate software, it can be decoded and used.
-
- The X.400 keyword is followed by a second token indicating the method
- used. The simplest form is "X.400 HEX", with the complete X.409
- encoding of the body part in hexadecimal. More compact is "X.400
- 3/4", using the 3-byte to 4-character encoding as specified in RFC
- 1113, section 4.3.2.4.
-
- 4.7. uuencode
-
- The uuencode keyword specifies a section consisting of the output of
- the uuencode program supplied as part of uucp.
-
- 4.8. encrypted
-
- The encrypted keyword indicates that the section is encrypted with
- the methods in RFC 1115 [8]. This replaces the possible use of RFC
- 934 [5] encapsulation.
-
- References
-
- [1] International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee,
- "Data Communication Networks: Message Handling Systems", In CCITT
- Recommendations X.400 to X.430, VIIIth Plenary Assembly, Malaga-
-
-
-
- Robinson & Ullmann [Page 5]
-
- RFC 1154 Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages April 1990
-
-
- Torremolinos, 1984, Fascicle VIII.7 ("Red Book").
-
- [2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
- Messages", RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982.
-
- [3] International Organization for Standardization, "Information
- processing - 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets -
- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1", ISO 8859-1, ISO, 1987.
-
- [4] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
- I -- Message Encipherment and Authentication Procedures", RFC
- 1113, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.
-
- [5] Rose, M., and E. Stefferud, "Proposed Standard for Message
- Encapsulation", RFC 943, University of Delaware and NMA, January
- 1985.
-
- [6] Sirbu, M., "Content-type Header Field for Internet Messages", RFC
- 1049, CMU, March 1988.
-
- [7] Kent, S., and J. Linn, "Privacy Enhancement for Internet
- Electronic Mail: Part II -- Certificate-Based Key Management",
- RFC 1114, IAB Privacy Task Force, August 1989.
-
- [8] Linn, J., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part
- III -- Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers", RFC 1115, IAB Privacy
- Task Force, August 1989.
-
- Security Considerations
-
- Security issues are not addressed in this memo.
-
- Authors' Addresses
-
- David Robinson 10-30
- Prime Computer, Inc.
- 500 Old Connecticut Path
- Framingham, MA 01701
-
- Phone: +1 508 879 2960 x1774
-
- Email: DRB@Relay.Prime.COM
-
-
- Robert Ullmann 10-30
- Prime Computer, Inc.
- 500 Old Connecticut Path
- Framingham, MA 01701
-
-
-
- Robinson & Ullmann [Page 6]
-
- RFC 1154 Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages April 1990
-
-
- Phone: +1 508 879 2960 x1736
-
- Email: Ariel@Relay.Prime.COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Robinson & Ullmann [Page 7]
-