<pre>Network Working Group                                           A. Gwinn
Request for Comments: 1645                 Southern Methodist University
Obsoletes: <a href="./rfc1568">1568</a>                                                July 1994
Category: Informational


               <span class="h1">Simple Network Paging Protocol - Version 2</span>

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This RFC suggests a simple way for delivering both alphanumeric and
   numeric pages (one-way) to radio paging terminals.  Gateways
   supporting this protocol, as well as SMTP, have been in use for
   several months for nationwide paging and messaging.  In addition,
   email filters and SNPP client software for Unix and Windows are
   available at no cost.  Please contact the author for more
   information.

   Earlier versions of this specification were reviewed by IESG members
   and the "822 Extensions" Working Group.  They preferred an alternate
   strategy, as discussed under "Relationship to Other IETF Work",
   below.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>

   Beepers are as much a part of computer nerdom as X-terminals
   (perhaps, unfortunately, more).  The intent of Simple Network Paging
   Protocol is to provide a standard whereby pages can be delivered to
   individual paging terminals.  The most obvious benefit is the
   elimination of the need for modems and phone lines to produce
   alphanumeric pages, and the added ease of delivery of pages to
   terminals in other cities or countries.  Additionally, automatic page
   delivery should be somewhat more simplified.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. System Philosophy</span>

   Radio paging is somewhat taken for granted, because of the wide
   availability and wide use of paging products.  However, the actual
   delivery of the page, and the process used (especially in wider area
   paging) is somewhat complicated.  When a user initiates a page, by
   dialing a number on a telephone, or entering an alphanumeric page
   through some input device, the page must ultimately be delivered to



<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


   some paging terminal, somewhere.  In most cases, this delivery is
   made using TAP (Telocator Alphanumeric input Protocol, also known as
   IXO).  This protocol can be a somewhat convoluted, and complicated
   protocol using older style ASCII control characters and a non-
   standard checksumming routine to assist in validating the data.

   Even though TAP is widely used throughout the industry, there are
   plans on the table to move to a more flexible "standard" protocol
   referred to as TME (Telocator Message Entry Protocol).  The level two
   enhancements to SNPP (as described below) are intended for use with
   this forthcoming standard.

   However, acknowledging the complexity and flexibility of the current
   protocols (or the lack thereof), the final user function is quite
   simple: to deliver a page from point-of-origin to someone's beeper.
   That is the simple, real-time function that the base protocol
   attempts to address.  Validation of the paging information is left
   completely up to the paging terminal, making an SNPP gateway a direct
   "shim" between a paging terminal and the Internet.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Why not just use Email and SMTP?</span>

   Email, while quite reliable, is not always timely.  A good example of
   this is deferred messaging when a gateway is down. Suppose Mary Ghoti
   (fish@hugecompany.org) sends a message to Zaphod Beeblebrox's beeper
   (5551212@pager.pagingcompany.com). Hugecompany's gateway to the
   Internet is down causing Mary's message to be deferred.  Mary,
   however, is not notified of this delay because her message has not
   actually failed to reach its destination.  Three hours later, the
   link is restored, and (as soon as sendmail wakes up) the message is
   sent.  Obviously, if Mary's page concerned a meeting that was
   supposed to happen 2 hours ago, there will be some minor
   administrative details to work out between Mary and Zaphod!

   On the other hand, if Mary had used her SNPP client (or simply
   telnetted to the SNPP gateway), she would have immediately discovered
   the network problem.  She would have decided to invoke plan "B" and
   call Zaphod's pager on the telephone, ringing him that way.

   The obvious difference here is not page delivery, but the immediate
   notification of a problem that affects your message. Standard email
   and SMTP, while quite reliable in most cases, cannot be positively
   guaranteed between all nodes at all times, making it less desirable
   for emergency or urgent paging.  This inability to guarantee delivery
   could, whether rightly or wrongly, place the service provider in an
   uncomfortable position with a client who has just received his or her
   emergency page, six hours too late.




<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


   Another advantage of using a separate protocol for paging delivery is
   that it gives the sender absolute flexibility over what is sent to
   the pager.  For instance, in the paging arena, where messages are
   sent to alphanumeric pagers, it is less desirable to send the
   recipient general header lines from a standard SMTP message.  Much of
   the information is useless, possibly redundant, and a waste of
   precious RF bandwidth.

   Therefore, when implementing an SMTP gateway, the service provider
   should elect to parse out needed information (such as the sender, and
   possibly subject) such to maximize the utility of the transmission.
   Parsing generally means less control over content and format by the
   message originator.  SNPP provides a clean, effective way to send a
   message, as written, to the recipient's pager.

   The other consideration is the relative simplicity of the SNPP
   protocol for manual telnet sessions versus someone trying to manually
   hack a mail message into a gateway.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. The SNPP Protocol</span>

   The SNPP protocol is a sequence of commands and replies, and is based
   on the philosophy of many other Internet protocols currently in use.
   SNPP has several input commands (the first 4 characters of each are
   significant) that solicit various server responses falling into four
   categories:

    2xx - Successful, continue
    3xx - Begin DATA input (see "DATA" command)
    4xx - Failed with connection terminated
    5xx - Failed, but continue session

   The first character of every server response code is a digit
   indicating the category of response.  The text portion of the
   response following the code may be altered to suit individual
   applications.

   The session interaction is actually quite simple (hence the name).
   The client initiates the connection with the listening server.  Upon
   opening the connection, the server issues a "220" level message
   (indicating the willingness of the server to accept SNPP commands).
   The client passes pager ID information, and a message, then issues a
   "SEND" command.  The server then feeds the information to the paging
   terminal, gathers a response, and reports the success or failure to
   the client.






<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a> Examples of SNPP Transactions</span>

   The following illustrate examples of client-server communication
   using SNPP.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.1" href="#section-4.1.1">4.1.1</a> A Typical Level One Connection</span>

            Client                         Server

    Open Connection               --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  220 SNPP Gateway Ready
    PAGE 5551212                  --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Pager ID Accepted
    MESS Your network is hosed    --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Message OK
    SEND                          --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Message Sent OK
    QUIT                          --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  221 OK, Goodbye

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1.2" href="#section-4.1.2">4.1.2</a> A Typical Level Two, Multiple Transaction</span>

   The following example illustrates a single message sent to two
   pagers.  Using this level protocol, pager-specific options may be
   selected for each receiver by specifying the option prior to issuing
   the "PAGEr" command.  In this example, an alternate coverage area is
   selected for the first pager, while delayed messaging is specified
   for the second.

            Client                         Server

    Open Connection               --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  220 SNPP Server Ready
    COVE 2                        --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Alternate Area Selected
    PAGE 5551212 FOOBAR           --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Pager ID Accepted
    HOLD 9401152300 -0600         --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Delayed Message OK
    PAGE 5552323 XYZZY            --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Pager ID Accepted
    SUBJ Seattle Meeting          --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Message Subject OK
    DATA                          --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  354 Begin Input, End With '.'
    Please meet me tomorrow at    --&gt;
    the Seattle office            --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 DATA Accepted



<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


    SEND                          --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  250 Message Sent OK
    QUIT                          --&gt;
                                  &lt;--  221 OK, Goodbye

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a> Level 1 Commands</span>

   Level one commands are designed as a minimum implementation of the
   protocol.  This collection of commands may be used with either
   TAP/IXO or TME for message delivery to the paging terminal.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1" href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a> PAGEr &lt;Pager ID&gt;</span>

   The PAGEr command submits a pager ID (PID) number, for inclusion in
   the next messaging transaction.  The PID used must reside in, and be
   validated by the paging terminal.  Limited validation may optionally
   be done on the server (such as all numeric, and ID length), or
   validation can be left up to the terminal at the time the page is
   sent.

   When implementing SNPP, the user may elect to support multiple
   recipients per message sent.  However, be wary that validation-
   prior-to-sending is not possible with TAP/IXO (and is not an official
   option of the current TME specification).  What this means is that in
   order to validate a PID, one must generate a message to the pager.
   The terminal responds favorably or negatively.  When reporting
   failure of a single PID in a sequence, delineating and reporting the
   failure in a "standard format" may prove to be a challenge.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a PAGEr command are:

    250 Pager ID Accepted
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    550 Error, Invalid Pager ID
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

   The level 2 enhancements affect the PAGEr command.  Please refer to
   the appropriate section for details.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.2" href="#section-4.2.2">4.2.2</a> MESSage &lt;Alpha or Numeric Message&gt;</span>

   The MESSage command specifies a single-line message, into the
   gateway.  Limited validation of the message may be done on the SNPP
   server (such as length), but type-of-message validation should be
   done by the paging terminal.  Duplicating the MESSage command before
   SENDing the message should produce an "503 ERROR, Message Already



<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


   Entered" message, and allow the user to continue.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a MESSage command are:

    250 Message OK
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    503 ERROR, Message Already Entered
    550 ERROR, Invalid Message
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.3" href="#section-4.2.3">4.2.3</a> RESEt</span>

   The RESEt command clears already entered information from the server
   session, resetting it to the state of a freshly opened connection.
   This is provided, primarily, as a means to reset accidentally entered
   information during a manual session.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a RESEt command are:

    250 RESET OK
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.4" href="#section-4.2.4">4.2.4</a> SEND</span>

   The SEND command finalizes the current message transaction, and
   processes the page to the paging terminal.  Prior to processing, the
   PAGEr and MESSage fields (or message DATA when using the level two
   option) should be checked for the existence of information.  Should
   one of these required fields be missing, the server should respond
   "503 Error, Incomplete Information" and allow the user to continue.
   Assuming that the information is complete, the SNPP server should
   format and send the page to the paging terminal, and await a
   response.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a SEND command are:

    250 Message Sent Successfully
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    503 Error, Pager ID or Message Incomplete
    554 Message Failed [non-administrative reason]





<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


   Or, in the case of an illegal or non-existent pager ID, or some other
   administrative reason for rejecting the page, the server should
   respond:

    550 Failed, Illegal Pager ID (or other explanation)

   After processing a SEND command, the server should remain online to
   allow the client to submit another transaction.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.5" href="#section-4.2.5">4.2.5</a> QUIT</span>

   The QUIT command terminates the current session.  The server should
   simply respond:

    221 OK, Goodbye"

   and close the connection.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.6" href="#section-4.2.6">4.2.6</a> HELP (optional)</span>

   The optional HELP command displays a screen of information about
   commands that are valid on the SNPP server.  This is primarily to
   assist manual users of the gateway.  Each line of the HELP screen
   (responses) are preceded by a code "214".  At the end of the HELP
   sequence, a "250" series message is issued.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a HELP command are:

    214 [Help Text]  (repeated for each line of information)
    250 End of Help Information
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a> Level 2 - Minimum Extensions</span>

   This section specifies minimum enhancements to the SNPP protocol for
   added functionality.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.1" href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a> DATA</span>

   The DATA command is an alternate form of the MESSage command,
   allowing for multiple line delivery of a message to the paging
   terminal.  This command's function is similar to the DATA command
   implemented in SMTP (Internet STD10, <a href="./rfc821">RFC821</a>).  The SNPP server should
   only allow one DATA or MESSage command to be issued prior to a SEND.




<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a DATA command are:

    354 Begin Input; End with &lt;CRLF&gt;'.'&lt;CRLF&gt;
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    503 ERROR, Message Already Entered
    500 Command Not Implemented
    550 ERROR, failed (administrative reason)
    554 ERROR, failed (technical reason)

   Upon receiving a "354" response, the client begins line input of the
   message to send to the pager.  A single period ("."), in the first
   position of the line, terminates input.  After input, the server may
   respond:

    250 Message OK
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    550 ERROR, Invalid Message (or administrative reason)
    554 ERROR, Failed (technical reason)

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a> Level 2 - Optional Extensions</span>

   This section discusses enhancements to the SNPP protocol for more
   control over paging functions.  These are primarily designed to
   mirror the added functionality built into the Telocator Message Entry
   (TME) protocol as specified in the TDP protocol suite. These
   functions may, optionally (as is being done by the author), be
   integrated into a paging terminal.  There is no requirement to
   implement all of these functions.  Requests for invalid functions
   should return a "500 Function Not Implemented" error.

   It is important to note that, at the time of this publication, the
   TME standard is still not finalized.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.1" href="#section-4.4.1">4.4.1</a> LOGIn &lt;loginid&gt; [password]</span>

   This command allows for a session login ID to be specified.  It is
   used to validate the person attempting to access the paging terminal.
   If no LOGIn command is issued, "anonymous" user status is assumed.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a LOGIn command are:

    250 Login Accepted
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)



<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


    421 Illegal Access Attempt
    550 Error, Invalid LoginID or Password
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.2" href="#section-4.4.2">4.4.2</a> PAGEr &lt;PagerID&gt; [Password/PIN]</span>

   This PAGEr command is an enhancement to the level one specification.
   The primary difference is the ability to specify a password or PIN
   for validation or feature access.

   Before proceeding, it is important to understand the logical function
   of the PAGEr command with respect to the LEVEl, COVErage, HOLDtime,
   and ALERt commands (option parameters as described below).  Each time
   a PAGEr command is issued, it should be thought of as the last step
   in a multiple step transaction.

   When the PAGEr command is processed, the pager ID (and password) is
   submitted to the paging terminal with LEVEl, COVErage, HOLDtime, and
   ALERt.  If these parameters have not been altered, then their
   defaults are assumed for the transaction.  After the next PAGEr
   command has been processed, these option parameters are reset their
   defaults.  Using this type of "option-option- option-go" scheme, it
   is possible to specify a different priority level for "Jeff," and an
   alternate coverage area for "Kathy," while sending the same message
   to each.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a PAGEr command are:

    250 Pager ID Accepted
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    550 Error, Invalid Pager ID or Password
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.3" href="#section-4.4.3">4.4.3</a> LEVEl &lt;ServiceLevel&gt;</span>

   The LEVEl function is used to specify an optional alternate level of
   service for the next PAGEr command.  Ideally, "ServiceLevel" should
   be an integer between 0 and 11 inclusive.  The TME protocol specifies
   ServiceLevel as follows:

    0 - Priority
    1 - Normal (default)
    2 - Five minutes
    3 - Fifteen minutes
    4 - One hour
    5 - Four hours



<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                           [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


    6 - Twelve hours
    7 - Twenty Four hours
    8 - Carrier specific '1'
    9 - Carrier specific '2'
   10 - Carrier specific '3'
   11 - Carrier specific '4'

   The choice on how to implement this feature, or to what level it
   should be implemented, should be optional and up to the discretion of
   the carrier.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a LEVEl command are:

    250 OK, Alternate Service Level Accepted
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented
    550 Error, Invalid Service Level Specified
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.4" href="#section-4.4.4">4.4.4</a> ALERt &lt;AlertOverride&gt;</span>

   The optional ALERt command may be used to override the default
   setting and specify whether or not to alert the subscriber upon
   receipt of a message.  This option, like the previous command, alters
   the parameters submitted to the paging terminal using the PAGEr
   command.  The TME protocol specifies AlertOverride as either 0-
   DoNotAlert, or 1-Alert.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a ALERt command are:

    250 OK, Alert Override Accepted
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented
    550 Error, Invalid Alert Parameter
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.5" href="#section-4.4.5">4.4.5</a> COVErage &lt;AlternateArea&gt;</span>

   The optional COVErage command is used to override the subscriber's
   default coverage area, and allow for the selection of an alternate
   region.  This option, like the previous command, alters the
   parameters submitted to the paging terminal using the PAGEr command.
   AlternateArea is a designator for one of the following:




<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                          [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


    - A subscriber-specific alternate coverage area
    - A carrier-defined region available to subscribers

   As an example, Mary Ghoti is a subscriber having local service in
   Chicago, Illinois (Mary's region '1').  Her account has been set up
   in such a manner as to allow Mary's pager to be paged nationwide upon
   demand (Mary's region '2').  Specifying "COVErage 2" prior to issuing
   the appropriate "PAGEr" command allows the default Chicago area to be
   overridden, and Mary's pager to be messaged nationally for that
   transaction.  It is assumed that the carrier providing Mary's service
   will keep track of how many pages have been sent to her pager in this
   manner, and will bill her accordingly.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a COVErage command are:

    250 Alternate Coverage Selected
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented
    550 Error, Invalid Alternate Region
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.6" href="#section-4.4.6">4.4.6</a> HOLDuntil &lt;YYMMDDHHMMSS&gt; [+/-GMTdifference]</span>

   The HOLDuntil command allows for the delayed delivery of a message,
   to a particular subscriber, until after the time specified.  The time
   may be specified in local time (e.g. local to the paging terminal),
   or with an added parameter specifying offset from GMT (in other
   words, "-0600" specifies Eastern Standard Time).  This option, like
   the previous command, alters the parameters submitted to the paging
   terminal using the PAGEr command.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a HOLDuntil command are:

    250 Delayed Messaging Selected
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented
    550 Error, Invalid Delivery Date/Time
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.7" href="#section-4.4.7">4.4.7</a> CALLerid &lt;CallerID&gt;</span>

   The CALLerid function is a message-oriented function (as opposed to
   the subscriber-oriented functions just described).  This allows for
   the specification of the CallerIdentifier function as described in



<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                          [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


   TME.  This parameter is optional, and is at the discretion of the
   carrier as to how it should be implemented or used.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a CALLerid command are:

    250 Caller ID Accepted
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented
    550 Error, Invalid Caller ID
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4.8" href="#section-4.4.8">4.4.8</a> SUBJect &lt;MessageSubject&gt;</span>

   The SUBJect function allows is a message-oriented function that
   allows the sender to specify a subject for the next message to be
   sent.  This parameter is optional and is at the discretion of the
   carrier as to how it should be implemented or used.

   Possible responses from the SNPP server, with suggested text, in
   response to a SUBJect command are:

    250 Message Subject Accepted
    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    421 Gateway Service Unavailable (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented
    550 Error, Invalid Subject Option
    554 Error, failed (technical reason)

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a> Illegal Commands</span>

   Should the client issue an illegal command, the server may respond in
   one of the two following ways:

    421 Too Many Errors, Goodbye (terminate connection)
    500 Command Not Implemented, Try Again

   The number of illegal commands allowed before terminating the
   connection should be at the discretion of the operator of the SNPP
   server.  The only response that has not been discussed is:

    421 SERVER DOWN, Goodbye

   This is used to refuse or terminate connections when the gateway is
   administratively down, or when there is some other technical or
   administrative problem with the paging terminal.




<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                          [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a> Timeouts</span>

   The SNPP server can, optionally, have an inactivity timeout
   implemented.  At the expiration of the allotted time, the server
   responds "421 Timeout, Goodbye" and closes the connection.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.7" href="#section-4.7">4.7</a> Rigidity of Command Structure</span>

   The commands from client to server should remain constant. However,
   since the first character of the response indicates success or
   failure, the text of the server responses could be altered to suit
   the tastes of the operator of the SNPP server. It is suggested that
   the response codes mirror SMTP response codes as closely as possible.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Revision History</span>

   Originally, when proposed, the author employed POP2 style
   result/response codes.  The Internet community suggested that this
   '+' and '-' style theory be altered to provide numeric response codes
   -- similar to those used in other services such as SMTP.  The
   protocol has been altered to this specification from the first
   proposed draft.

   Administrative errors (Illegal Pager ID, for example) have been
   separated from technical errors (out-of-space on disk, for example).
   Administrative failures are generally preceded with a 550 series
   response, while technical failures bear a 554 series code.

   Level two enhancements to the protocol have been added in preparation
   for TME deployment.

   Error code "502 Command not implemented" was changed to a general
   "500 Command not recognized" failure result to closer follow SMTP.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Relationship to Other IETF Work</span>

   The strategy of this specification, and many of its details, were
   reviewed by an IETF Working Group and three IESG members.  They
   concluded that an approach using the existing email infrastructure
   was preferable, due in large measure to the very high costs of
   deploying a new protocol and the advantages of using the Internet's
   most widely-distributed applications protocol infrastructure.  Most
   reviewers felt that no new protocol was needed at all because the
   special "deliver immediately or fail" requirements of SNPP could be
   accomplished by careful configuration of clients and servers.  The
   experimental network printing protocol [<a href="#ref-4" title="&quot;An Experiment in Remote Printing&quot;">4</a>] was identified as an
   example of an existing infrastructure approach to an existing
   problem. Other reviewers believed that a case could be made for new



<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                          [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


   protocol details to identify paging clients and servers to each other
   and negotiate details of the transactions, but that it would be
   sensible to handle those details as extensions to SMTP [<a href="#ref-1" title="&quot;Simple Mail Transfer Protocol&quot;">1</a>, <a href="#ref-2" title="&quot;SMTP Service Extensions&quot;">2</a>] rather
   than deploying a new protocol structure.

   The author, while recognizing these positions, believes that there is
   merit in a separate protocol to isolate details of TAP/IXO and its
   evolving successors from users and, indeed, from mail-based
   approaches that might reach systems that would act as SMTP/MIME [<a href="#ref-3" title="&quot;MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies&quot;">3</a>]
   to SNPP gateways.  Such systems and gateways are, indeed, undergoing
   design and development concurrent with this work.  See the section
   "Why not just use Email and SMTP?" for additional discussion of the
   author's view of the classical electronic email approach.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. References</span>

   [<a id="ref-1">1</a>] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, <a href="./rfc821">RFC 821</a>,
       USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.

   [<a id="ref-2">2</a>] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D. Crocker,
       "SMTP Service Extensions", United Nations University, Innosoft,
       Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., Network Management Associates,
       Inc., The Branch Office, <a href="./rfc1425">RFC 1425</a>, February 1993.

   [<a id="ref-3">3</a>] Borenstein, N., and N. Freed, "MIME  (Multipurpose Internet Mail
       Extensions) Part One:  Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing
       the Format of Internet Message Bodies", <a href="./rfc1521">RFC 1521</a>, Bellcore,
       Innosoft, September 1993.

   [<a id="ref-4">4</a>] Rose, M., and C. Malamud, "An Experiment in Remote Printing", <a href="./rfc1486">RFC</a>
       <a href="./rfc1486">1486</a>, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., Internet Multicasting
       Service, July 1993.



















<span class="grey">Gwinn                                                          [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc1645">RFC 1645</a>                    SNPP - Version 2                   July 1994</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Author's Address</span>

   R. Allen Gwinn, Jr.
   Associate Director, Computing Services
   Business Information Center
   Southern Methodist University
   Dallas, TX  75275

   Phone:  214/768-3186
   EMail:  allen@mail.cox.smu.edu  or  allen@sulaco.lonestar.org





































Gwinn                                                          [Page 15]
</pre>