<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       D. Margolis
Request for Comments: 8460                                  Google, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                     A. Brotman
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            Comcast, Inc.
                                                         B. Ramakrishnan
                                                              Oath, Inc.
                                                                J. Jones
                                                         Microsoft, Inc.
                                                               M. Risher
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                          September 2018


                           <span class="h1">SMTP TLS Reporting</span>

Abstract

   A number of protocols exist for establishing encrypted channels
   between SMTP Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs), including STARTTLS, DNS-
   Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA, and MTA Strict
   Transport Security (MTA-STS).  These protocols can fail due to
   misconfiguration or active attack, leading to undelivered messages or
   delivery over unencrypted or unauthenticated channels.  This document
   describes a reporting mechanism and format by which sending systems
   can share statistics and specific information about potential
   failures with recipient domains.  Recipient domains can then use this
   information to both detect potential attacks and diagnose
   unintentional misconfigurations.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section&nbsp;2 of RFC 7841</a>.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8460">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8460</a>.









<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (<a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   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.





































<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-4">4</a>
     <a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>.  Related Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-5">5</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>.  Reporting Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-6">6</a>
     <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Example Reporting Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-8">8</a>
       <a href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>.  Report Using MAILTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-8">8</a>
       <a href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>.  Report Using HTTPS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-8">8</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>.  Reporting Schema  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-8">8</a>
     <a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>.  Report Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-9">9</a>
     <a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>.  Delivery Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
       <a href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>.  Success Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
       <a href="#section-4.2.2">4.2.2</a>.  Failure Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
     <a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  Result Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
       <a href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a>.  Negotiation Failures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
       <a href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a>.  Policy Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-11">11</a>
       <a href="#section-4.3.3">4.3.3</a>.  General Failures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-11">11</a>
       <a href="#section-4.3.4">4.3.4</a>.  Transient Failures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-12">12</a>
     <a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>.  JSON Report Schema  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-12">12</a>
     <a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>.  Policy Samples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-15">15</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>.  Report Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-15">15</a>
     <a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  Report Filename . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-16">16</a>
     <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-17">17</a>
     <a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>.  Email Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-17">17</a>
       <a href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a>.  Example Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-19">19</a>
     <a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>.  HTTPS Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-19">19</a>
     <a href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>.  Delivery Retry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
     <a href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>.  Metadata Variances  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
     <a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Message Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
     <a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Report Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-21">21</a>
     <a href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  +gzip Media Type Suffix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-22">22</a>
     <a href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  application/tlsrpt+json Media Type  . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-23">23</a>
     <a href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>.  application/tlsrpt+gzip Media Type  . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-24">24</a>
     <a href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>.  STARTTLS Validation Result Types  . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-25">25</a>
   <a href="#section-7">7</a>.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-26">26</a>
   <a href="#section-8">8</a>.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-27">27</a>
   <a href="#section-9">9</a>.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-28">28</a>
     <a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-28">28</a>
     <a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
   <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>.  Example Reporting Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-32">32</a>
     <a href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>.  Report Using MAILTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-32">32</a>
     <a href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>.  Report Using HTTPS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-32">32</a>
   <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>.  Example JSON Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-32">32</a>
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-34">34</a>
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-34">34</a>




<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


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

   The STARTTLS extension to SMTP [<a href="./rfc3207" title="&quot;SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security&quot;">RFC3207</a>] allows SMTP clients and
   hosts to establish secure SMTP sessions over TLS.  The protocol
   design uses an approach that has come to be known as "Opportunistic
   Security" (OS) [<a href="./rfc7435" title="&quot;Opportunistic Security: Some Protection Most of the Time&quot;">RFC7435</a>].  This method maintains interoperability
   with clients that do not support STARTTLS, but it means that any
   attacker could potentially eavesdrop on a session.  An attacker could
   perform a downgrade or interception attack by deleting parts of the
   SMTP session (such as the "250 STARTTLS" response) or redirect the
   entire SMTP session (perhaps by overwriting the resolved MX record of
   the delivery domain).

   Because such "downgrade attacks" are not necessarily apparent to the
   receiving MTA, this document defines a mechanism for sending domains
   to report on failures at multiple stages of the MTA-to-MTA
   conversation.

   Recipient domains may also use the mechanisms defined by MTA-STS
   [<a href="./rfc8461" title="&quot;SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA- STS)&quot;">RFC8461</a>] or DANE [<a href="./rfc6698" title="&quot;The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA&quot;">RFC6698</a>] to publish additional encryption and
   authentication requirements; this document defines a mechanism for
   sending domains that are compatible with MTA-STS or DANE to share
   success and failure statistics with recipient domains.

   Specifically, this document defines a reporting schema that covers
   failures in routing, DNS resolution, and STARTTLS negotiation; policy
   validation errors for both DANE [<a href="./rfc6698" title="&quot;The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA&quot;">RFC6698</a>] and MTA-STS [<a href="./rfc8461" title="&quot;SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA- STS)&quot;">RFC8461</a>]; and
   a standard TXT record that recipient domains can use to indicate
   where reports in this format should be sent.  The report can also
   serve as a heartbeat to indicate that systems are successfully
   negotiating TLS during sessions as expected.

   This document is intended as a companion to the specification for
   SMTP MTA-STS [<a href="./rfc8461" title="&quot;SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA- STS)&quot;">RFC8461</a>] and adds reporting abilities for those
   implementing DANE [<a href="./rfc7672" title="&quot;SMTP Security via Opportunistic DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)&quot;">RFC7672</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>.  Terminology</span>

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title="&quot;Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words&quot;">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.








<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   We also define the following terms for further use in this document:

   o  MTA-STS Policy: A mechanism by which administrators can specify
      the expected TLS availability, presented identity, and desired
      actions for a given email recipient domain.  MTA-STS is defined in
      [<a href="./rfc8461" title="&quot;SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA- STS)&quot;">RFC8461</a>].

   o  DANE Policy: A mechanism by which administrators can use DNSSEC to
      commit an MTA to support STARTTLS and to publish criteria to be
      used to validate its presented certificates.  DANE for SMTP is
      defined in [<a href="./rfc7672" title="&quot;SMTP Security via Opportunistic DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)&quot;">RFC7672</a>], with the base specification defined in
      [<a href="./rfc6698" title="&quot;The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA&quot;">RFC6698</a>] (and updated by [<a href="./rfc7671" title="&quot;The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Protocol: Updates and Operational Guidance&quot;">RFC7671</a>]).

   o  TLSRPT (TLS Reporting) Policy: A policy specifying the endpoint to
      which Sending MTAs should deliver reports.

   o  Policy Domain: The domain against which a TLSRPT, an MTA-STS, or a
      DANE policy is defined.  For TLSRPT and MTA-STS, this is typically
      the same as the envelope recipient domain [<a href="./rfc5321" title="&quot;Simple Mail Transfer Protocol&quot;">RFC5321</a>], but when mail
      is routed to a "smarthost" gateway by local policy, the
      "smarthost" domain name is used instead.  For DANE, the Policy
      Domain is the "TLSA base domain" of the receiving SMTP server as
      described in <a href="./rfc7672#section-2.2.3">Section&nbsp;2.2.3 of RFC 7672</a> and <a href="./rfc6698#section-3">Section&nbsp;3 of RFC 6698</a>.

   o  Sending MTA: The MTA initiating the relay of an email message.

   o  Aggregate Report URI (rua): A comma-separated list of locations
      where the report is to be submitted.

   o  ABNF: Augmented Backus-Naur Form, a syntax for formally specifying
      syntax, defined in [<a href="./rfc5234" title="&quot;Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF&quot;">RFC5234</a>] and [<a href="./rfc7405" title="&quot;Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF&quot;">RFC7405</a>].

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

   o  This document is intended as a companion to the specification for
      SMTP MTA-STS [<a href="./rfc8461" title="&quot;SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA- STS)&quot;">RFC8461</a>].

   o  SMTP TLSRPT defines a mechanism for sending domains that are
      compatible with MTA-STS or DANE to share success and failure
      statistics with recipient domains.  DANE is defined in [<a href="./rfc6698" title="&quot;The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA&quot;">RFC6698</a>],
      and MTA-STS is defined in [<a href="./rfc8461" title="&quot;SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA- STS)&quot;">RFC8461</a>].










<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Reporting Policy</span>

   A domain publishes a record to its DNS indicating that it wishes to
   receive reports.  These SMTP TLSRPT policies are distributed via DNS
   from the Policy Domain's zone as TXT records (similar to Domain-based
   Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) policies)
   under the name "_smtp._tls".  For example, for the Policy Domain
   "example.com", the recipient's TLSRPT policy can be retrieved from
   "_smtp._tls.example.com".

   Policies consist of the following directives:

   o  "v": This document defines version 1 of TLSRPT, for which this
      value MUST be equal to "TLSRPTv1".  Other versions may be defined
      in later documents.

   o  "rua": A URI specifying the endpoint to which aggregate
      information about policy validation results should be sent (see
      <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>, "Reporting Schema", for more information).  Two URI
      schemes are supported: "mailto" and "https".  As with DMARC
      [<a href="./rfc7489" title="&quot;Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)&quot;">RFC7489</a>], the Policy Domain can specify a comma-separated list of
      URIs.

   o  In the case of "https", reports should be submitted via POST
      [<a href="./rfc7231" title="&quot;Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content&quot;">RFC7231</a>] to the specified URI.  Report submitters MAY ignore
      certificate validation errors when submitting reports via HTTPS
      POST.

   o  In the case of "mailto", reports should be submitted to the
      specified email address [<a href="./rfc6068" title="&quot;The 'mailto' URI Scheme&quot;">RFC6068</a>].  When sending failure reports
      via SMTP, Sending MTAs MUST deliver reports despite any TLS-
      related failures and SHOULD NOT include this SMTP session in the
      next report.  This may mean that the reports are delivered
      unencrypted.  Reports sent via SMTP MUST contain a valid
      DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) [<a href="./rfc6376" title="&quot;DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures&quot;">RFC6376</a>] signature by the
      reporting domain.  Reports lacking such a signature MUST be
      ignored by the recipient.  DKIM signatures MUST NOT use the "l="
      attribute to limit the body length used in the signature.  This
      ensures attackers cannot append extraneous or misleading data to a
      report without breaking the signature.  The DKIM TXT record SHOULD
      contain the appropriate service type declaration, "s=tlsrpt".  If
      not present, the receiving system MAY ignore reports lacking that
      service type.

   Sample DKIM record:

      dkim_selector._domainkey.example.com TXT
            "v=DKIM1;k=rsa;s=tlsrpt;p=Mlf4qwSZfase4fa=="



<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   The formal definition of the "_smtp._tls" TXT record, defined using
   [<a href="./rfc5234" title="&quot;Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF&quot;">RFC5234</a>] and [<a href="./rfc7405" title="&quot;Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF&quot;">RFC7405</a>], is as follows:

        tlsrpt-record     = tlsrpt-version 1*(field-delim tlsrpt-field)
                            [field-delim]

        field-delim       = *WSP ";" *WSP

        tlsrpt-field      = tlsrpt-rua /        ; Note that the
                            tlsrpt-extension    ; tlsrpt-rua record is
                                                ; required.

        tlsrpt-version    = %s"v=TLSRPTv1"

        tlsrpt-rua        = %s"rua="
                            tlsrpt-uri *(*WSP "," *WSP tlsrpt-uri)

        tlsrpt-uri        = URI
                            ; "URI" is imported from [<a href="./rfc3986" title="&quot;Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax&quot;">RFC3986</a>];
                            ; commas (ASCII 0x2C), exclamation
                            ; points (ASCII 0x21), and semicolons
                            ; (ASCII 0x3B) MUST be encoded

        tlsrpt-extension  = tlsrpt-ext-name "=" tlsrpt-ext-value

        tlsrpt-ext-name   = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *31(ALPHA /
                            DIGIT / "_" / "-" / ".")

        tlsrpt-ext-value  = 1*(%x21-3A / %x3C / %x3E-7E)
                            ; chars excluding "=", ";", SP, and control
                            ; chars

   If multiple TXT records for "_smtp._tls" are returned by the
   resolver, records that do not begin with "v=TLSRPTv1;" are discarded.
   If the number of resulting records is not one, senders MUST assume
   the recipient domain does not implement TLSRPT.  If the resulting TXT
   record contains multiple strings (as described in <a href="./rfc7208#section-3.3">Section&nbsp;3.3 of
   [RFC7208]</a>), then the record MUST be treated as if those strings are
   concatenated without adding spaces.

   The record supports the ability to declare more than one rua, and if
   there exists more than one, the reporter MAY attempt to deliver to
   each of the supported rua destinations.  A receiver MAY opt to only
   attempt delivery to one of the endpoints; however, the report SHOULD
   NOT be considered successfully delivered until one of the endpoints
   accepts delivery of the report.





<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   Parsers MUST accept TXT records that are syntactically valid (i.e.,
   valid key/value pairs separated by semicolons) and implement a
   superset of this specification, in which case unknown fields SHALL be
   ignored.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Example Reporting Policy</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.1" href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>.  Report Using MAILTO</span>

            _smtp._tls.example.com. IN TXT \
                    "v=TLSRPTv1;rua=mailto:reports@example.com"

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.2" href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>.  Report Using HTTPS</span>

           _smtp._tls.example.com. IN TXT \
                   "v=TLSRPTv1; \
                   rua=https://reporting.example.com/v1/tlsrpt"

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  Reporting Schema</span>

   The report is composed as a plaintext file encoded in the Internet
   JSON (I-JSON) format [<a href="./rfc7493" title="&quot;The I-JSON Message Format&quot;">RFC7493</a>].

   Aggregate reports contain the following fields:

   o  Report metadata:

      *  The organization responsible for the report

      *  Contact information for one or more responsible parties for the
         contents of the report

      *  A unique identifier for the report

      *  The reporting date range for the report

   o  Policy, consisting of:

      *  One of the following policy types: (1) the MTA-STS Policy
         applied (as a string), (2) the DANE TLSA record applied (as a
         string, with each RR entry of the RRset listed and separated by
         a semicolon), and (3) the literal string "no-policy-found", if
         neither a DANE nor MTA-STS Policy could be found.

      *  The domain for which the policy is applied

      *  The MX host




<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   o  Aggregate counts, comprising result type, Sending MTA IP,
      receiving MTA hostname, session count, and an optional additional
      information field containing a URI for recipients to review
      further information on a failure type.

   Note that the failure types are non-exclusive; an aggregate report
   may contain overlapping "counts" of failure types when a single send
   attempt encountered multiple errors.  Reporters may report multiple
   applied policies (for example, an MTA-STS Policy and a DANE TLSA
   record for the same domain and MX).  Because of this, even in the
   case where only a single policy was applied, the "policies" field of
   the report body MUST be an array and not a singular value.

   In the case of multiple failure types, the "failure-details" array
   would contain multiple entries.  Each entry would have its own set of
   information pertaining to that failure type.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>.  Report Time Frame</span>

   The report SHOULD cover a full day, from 00:00-24:00 UTC.  This
   should allow for easier correlation of failure events.  To avoid
   unintentionally overloading the system processing the reports, the
   reports should be delivered after some delay, perhaps several hours.

   As an example, a sending site might want to introduce a random delay
   of up to four hours:

          func generate_sleep_delay() {
            min_delay = 1
            max_delay = 14400
            rand = random(min_delay, max_delay)
            return rand
          }

          func generate_report(policy_domain) {
            do_rpt_work(policy_domain)
            send_rpt(policy_domain)
          }

          func generate_tlsrpt() {
            sleep(generate_sleep_delay())
            for policy_domain in list_of_tlsrpt_enabled_domains {
              generate_report(policy_domain)
            }
          }






<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>.  Delivery Summary</span>

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.1" href="#section-4.2.1">4.2.1</a>.  Success Count</span>

   o  "total-successful-session-count": This indicates that the Sending
      MTA was able to successfully negotiate a policy-compliant TLS
      connection and serves to provide a "heartbeat" to receiving
      domains that signifies reporting is functional and tabulating
      correctly.  This field contains an aggregate count of successful
      connections for the reporting system.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2.2" href="#section-4.2.2">4.2.2</a>.  Failure Count</span>

   o  "total-failure-session-count": This indicates that the Sending MTA
      was unable to successfully establish a connection with the
      receiving platform.  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>, "Result Types", will elaborate
      on the failed negotiation attempts.  This field contains an
      aggregate count of failed connections.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  Result Types</span>

   The list of result types will start with the minimal set below and is
   expected to grow over time based on real-world experience.  The
   initial set is outlined in Sections <a href="#section-4.3.1">4.3.1</a> to <a href="#section-4.3.4">4.3.4</a>:

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

   o  "starttls-not-supported": This indicates that the recipient MX did
      not support STARTTLS.

   o  "certificate-host-mismatch": This indicates that the certificate
      presented did not adhere to the constraints specified in the MTA-
      STS or DANE policy, e.g., if the MX hostname does not match any
      identities listed in the subject alternative name (SAN) [<a href="./rfc5280" title="&quot;Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile&quot;">RFC5280</a>].

   o  "certificate-expired": This indicates that the certificate has
      expired.

   o  "certificate-not-trusted": This is a label that covers multiple
      certificate-related failures that include, but are not limited to,
      errors such as untrusted/unknown certification authorities (CAs),
      certificate name constraints, certificate chain errors, etc.  When
      using this declaration, the reporting MTA SHOULD utilize the
      "failure-reason-code" to provide more information to the receiving
      entity.






<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   o  "validation-failure": This indicates a general failure for a
      reason not matching a category above.  When using this
      declaration, the reporting MTA SHOULD utilize the "failure-reason-
      code" to provide more information to the receiving entity.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.2" href="#section-4.3.2">4.3.2</a>.  Policy Failures</span>

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.2.1" href="#section-4.3.2.1">4.3.2.1</a>.  DANE-Specific Policy Failures</span>

   o  "tlsa-invalid": This indicates a validation error in the TLSA
      record associated with a DANE policy.  None of the records in the
      RRset were found to be valid.

   o  "dnssec-invalid": This indicates that no valid records were
      returned from the recursive resolver.

   o  "dane-required": This indicates that the sending system is
      configured to require DANE TLSA records for all the MX hosts of
      the destination domain, but no DNSSEC-validated TLSA records were
      present for the MX host that is the subject of the report.
      Mandatory DANE for SMTP is described in <a href="./rfc7672#section-6">Section&nbsp;6 of [RFC7672]</a>.
      Such policies may be created by mutual agreement between two
      organizations that frequently exchange sensitive content via
      email.

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.2.2" href="#section-4.3.2.2">4.3.2.2</a>.  MTA-STS-specific Policy Failures</span>

   o  "sts-policy-fetch-error": This indicates a failure to retrieve an
      MTA-STS policy, for example, because the policy host is
      unreachable.

   o  "sts-policy-invalid": This indicates a validation error for the
      overall MTA-STS Policy.

   o  "sts-webpki-invalid": This indicates that the MTA-STS Policy could
      not be authenticated using PKIX validation.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.3" href="#section-4.3.3">4.3.3</a>.  General Failures</span>

   When a negotiation failure cannot be categorized into one of the
   "Negotiation Failures" stated above, the reporter SHOULD use the
   "validation-failure" category.  As TLS grows and becomes more
   complex, new mechanisms may not be easily categorized.  This allows
   for a generic feedback category.  When this category is used, the
   reporter SHOULD also use "failure-reason-code" to give some feedback
   to the receiving entity.  This is intended to be a short text field,
   and the contents of the field should be an error code or error text,
   such as "X509_V_ERR_UNHANDLED_CRITICAL_CRL_EXTENSION".



<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3.4" href="#section-4.3.4">4.3.4</a>.  Transient Failures</span>

   Transient errors due to too-busy networks, TCP timeouts, etc., are
   not required to be reported.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>.  JSON Report Schema</span>

   The JSON schema is derived from the HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP)
   JSON schema; see <a href="./rfc7469#section-3">Section&nbsp;3 of [RFC7469]</a>.

 {
   "organization-name": organization-name,
   "date-range": {
     "start-datetime": date-time,
     "end-datetime": date-time
   },
   "contact-info": email-address,
   "report-id": report-id,
   "policies": [{
     "policy": {
       "policy-type": policy-type,
       "policy-string": policy-string,
       "policy-domain": domain,
       "mx-host": mx-host-pattern
     },
     "summary": {
       "total-successful-session-count": total-successful-session-count,
       "total-failure-session-count": total-failure-session-count
     },
     "failure-details": [
       {
         "result-type": result-type,
         "sending-mta-ip": ip-address,
         "receiving-mx-hostname": receiving-mx-hostname,
         "receiving-mx-helo": receiving-mx-helo,
         "receiving-ip": receiving-ip,
         "failed-session-count": failed-session-count,
         "additional-information": additional-info-uri,
         "failure-reason-code": failure-reason-code
         }
       ]
     }
   ]
 }


                            JSON Report Format




<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   o  "organization-name": The name of the organization responsible for
      the report.  It is provided as a string.

   o  "date-time": The date-time indicates the start and end times for
      the report range.  It is provided as a string formatted according
      to "Internet Date/Time Format", <a href="./rfc3339#section-5.6">Section&nbsp;5.6 of [RFC3339]</a>.  The
      report should be for a full UTC day, 00:00-24:00.

   o  "email-address": The contact information for the party responsible
      for the report.  It is provided as a string formatted according to
      "Addr-Spec Specification", <a href="./rfc5322#section-3.4.1">Section&nbsp;3.4.1 of [RFC5322]</a>.

   o  "report-id": A unique identifier for the report.  Report authors
      may use whatever scheme they prefer to generate a unique
      identifier.  It is provided as a string.

   o  "policy-type": The type of policy that was applied by the sending
      domain.  Presently, the only three valid choices are "tlsa",
      "sts", and the literal string "no-policy-found".  It is provided
      as a string.

   o  "policy-string": An encoding of the applied policy as a JSON array
      of strings, whether it's a TLSA record (<a href="./rfc6698#section-2.3">[RFC6698], Section&nbsp;2.3</a>) or
      an MTA-STS Policy.  Examples follow in the next section.

   o  "domain": The Policy Domain against which the MTA-STS or DANE
      policy is defined.  In the case of Internationalized Domain Names
      [<a href="./rfc5891" title="&quot;Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol&quot;">RFC5891</a>], the domain MUST consist of the Punycode-encoded
      A-labels [<a href="./rfc3492" title="&quot;Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)&quot;">RFC3492</a>] and not the U-labels.

   o  "mx-host-pattern": In the case where "policy-type" is "sts", it's
      the pattern of MX hostnames from the applied policy.  It is
      provided as a JSON array of strings and is interpreted in the same
      manner as the rules in "MX Host Validation"; see <a href="./rfc8461#section-4.1">Section&nbsp;4.1 of
      [RFC8461]</a>.  In the case of Internationalized Domain Names
      [<a href="./rfc5891" title="&quot;Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol&quot;">RFC5891</a>], the domain MUST consist of the Punycode-encoded
      A-labels [<a href="./rfc3492" title="&quot;Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)&quot;">RFC3492</a>] and not the U-labels.

   o  "result-type": A value from <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>, "Result Types", above.

   o  "ip-address": The IP address of the Sending MTA that attempted the
      STARTTLS connection.  It is provided as a string representation of
      an IPv4 (see below) or IPv6 [<a href="./rfc5952" title="&quot;A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation&quot;">RFC5952</a>] address in dot-decimal or
      colon-hexadecimal notation.

   o  "receiving-mx-hostname": The hostname of the receiving MTA MX
      record with which the Sending MTA attempted to negotiate a
      STARTTLS connection.



<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   o  "receiving-mx-helo" (optional): The HELLO (HELO) or Extended HELLO
      (EHLO) string from the banner announced during the reported
      session.

   o  "receiving-ip": The destination IP address that was used when
      creating the outbound session.  It is provided as a string
      representation of an IPv4 (see below) or IPv6 [<a href="./rfc5952" title="&quot;A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation&quot;">RFC5952</a>] address in
      dot-decimal or colon-hexadecimal notation.

   o  "total-successful-session-count": The aggregate count (an integer,
      encoded as a JSON number) of successfully negotiated TLS-enabled
      connections to the receiving site.

   o  "total-failure-session-count": The aggregate count (an integer,
      encoded as a JSON number) of failures to negotiate a TLS-enabled
      connection to the receiving site.

   o  "failed-session-count": The number of (attempted) sessions that
      match the relevant "result-type" for this section (an integer,
      encoded as a JSON number).

   o  "additional-info-uri" (optional): A URI [<a href="./rfc3986" title="&quot;Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax&quot;">RFC3986</a>] that points to
      additional information around the relevant "result-type".  For
      example, this URI might host the complete certificate chain
      presented during an attempted STARTTLS session.

   o  "failure-reason-code": A text field to include a TLS-related error
      code or error message.

   For report purposes, an IPv4 address is defined via the following
   ABNF:

     IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
     dec-octet     = DIGIT                 ; 0-9
                   / %x31-39 DIGIT         ; 10-99
                   / "1" 2DIGIT            ; 100-199
                   / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT     ; 200-249
                   / "25" %x30-35          ; 250-255

   And an IPv6 address is defined via the following ABNF:


     IPv6address = &lt;as defined in [<a href="./rfc5954">RFC5954</a>]&gt;








<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>.  Policy Samples</span>

   Part of the report body includes the policy that is applied when
   attempting relay to the destination.

   For DANE TLSA policies, this is a JSON array of strings each
   representing the RDATA of a single TLSA resource record as a space-
   separated list of its four TLSA fields; the fields are in
   presentation format (defined in <a href="./rfc6698#section-2.2">[RFC6698], Section&nbsp;2.2</a>) with no
   internal spaces or grouping parentheses:

       [
       "3 0 1 1F850A337E6DB9C609C522D136A475638CC43E1ED424F8EEC8513
              D747D1D085D",
       "3 0 1 12350A337E6DB9C6123522D136A475638CC43E1ED424F8EEC8513
              D747D1D1234"
       ]

   For MTA-STS policies, this is an array of JSON strings that
   represents the policy that is declared by the receiving site,
   including any errors that may be present.  Note that where there are
   multiple "mx" values, they must be listed as separate "mx" elements
   in the policy array rather than as a single nested "mx" sub-array.

                       [
                       "version: STSv1",
                       "mode: testing",
                       "mx: mx1.example.com",
                       "mx: mx2.example.com",
                       "mx: mx.backup-example.com",
                       "max_age: 604800"
                       ]

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

   Reports can be delivered either via SMTP (as an email message) or via
   HTTP POST.














<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  Report Filename</span>

   The filename is RECOMMENDED to be constructed using the following
   ABNF:

    filename        = sender "!" policy-domain "!" begin-timestamp
                      "!" end-timestamp [ "!" unique-id ] "." extension

    unique-id       = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT)

    sender          = domain ; from [<a href="./rfc5321" title="&quot;Simple Mail Transfer Protocol&quot;">RFC5321</a>] -- this is used
                      ; as the domain for the `contact-info`
                      ; address in the report body.
                      ; In the case of Internationalized Domain
                      ; Names [<a href="./rfc5891" title="&quot;Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol&quot;">RFC5891</a>], the domain MUST consist of
                      ; the Punycode-encoded A-labels [<a href="./rfc3492" title="&quot;Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)&quot;">RFC3492</a>] and
                      ; not the U-labels.

    policy-domain   = domain
                      ; In the case of Internationalized Domain
                      ; Names [<a href="./rfc5891" title="&quot;Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol&quot;">RFC5891</a>], the domain MUST consist of
                      ; the Punycode-encoded A-labels [<a href="./rfc3492" title="&quot;Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)&quot;">RFC3492</a>] and
                      ; not the U-labels.

    begin-timestamp = 1*DIGIT
                      ; seconds since 00:00:00 UTC January 1, 1970
                      ; indicating start of the time range contained
                      ; in the report

    end-timestamp   = 1*DIGIT
                      ; seconds since 00:00:00 UTC January 1, 1970
                      ; indicating end of the time range contained
                      ; in the report

    extension       = "json" / "json.gz"


   The extension MUST be "json" for a plain JSON file or "json.gz" for a
   JSON file compressed using gzip.

   "unique-id" allows an optional unique ID generated by the Sending MTA
   to distinguish among multiple reports generated simultaneously by
   different sources for the same Policy Domain.  For example, this is a
   possible filename for a compressed report to the Policy Domain
   "example.net" from the Sending MTA "mail.sndr.example.com":

   "mail.sndr.example.com!example.net!1470013207!1470186007!001.json.gz"




<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  Compression</span>

   The report SHOULD be subjected to gzip [<a href="./rfc1952" title="&quot;GZIP file format specification version 4.3&quot;">RFC1952</a>] compression for both
   email and HTTPS transport.  Declining to apply compression can cause
   the report to be too large for a receiver to process (a commonly
   observed receiver limit is ten megabytes); compressing the file
   increases the chances of acceptance of the report at some
   computational cost.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>.  Email Transport</span>

   The report MAY be delivered by email.  To make the reports machine-
   parsable for the receivers, we define a top-level media type
   "multipart/report" with a new parameter "report-type="tlsrpt"".
   Inside it, there are two parts: The first part is human readable,
   typically "text/plain", and the second part is machine readable with
   a new media type defined called "application/tlsrpt+json".  If
   compressed, the report should use the media type "application/
   tlsrpt+gzip".

   In addition, the following two new top-level message header fields
   are defined:

   "TLS-Report-Domain: Receiver-Domain"

   "TLS-Report-Submitter: Sender-Domain"

   The "TLS-Report-Submitter" value MUST match the value found in the
   domain [<a href="./rfc5321" title="&quot;Simple Mail Transfer Protocol&quot;">RFC5321</a>] of the "contact-info" from the report body.  These
   message header fields MUST be included and should allow for easy
   searching for all reports submitted by a reporting domain or a
   particular submitter, for example, in IMAP [<a href="./rfc3501" title="&quot;INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1&quot;">RFC3501</a>]:

   "s SEARCH HEADER "TLS-Report-Domain" "example.com""

   It is presumed that the aggregate reporting address will be equipped
   to process new message header fields and extract MIME parts with the
   prescribed media type and filename, and ignore the rest.  These
   additional headers SHOULD be included in the DKIM [<a href="./rfc6376" title="&quot;DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures&quot;">RFC6376</a>] signature
   for the message.











<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   The <a href="./rfc5322">RFC5322</a>.Subject field for report submissions SHOULD conform to
   the following ABNF:

       tlsrpt-subject = %s"Report" FWS               ; "Report"
                        %s"Domain:" FWS              ; "Domain:"
                        domain-name FWS              ; per [<a href="./rfc6376" title="&quot;DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures&quot;">RFC6376</a>]
                        %s"Submitter:" FWS           ; "Submitter:"
                        domain-name FWS              ; per [<a href="./rfc6376" title="&quot;DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures&quot;">RFC6376</a>]
                        %s"Report-ID:" FWS           ; "Report-ID:
                        "&lt;" id-left "@" id-right "&gt;" ; per [<a href="./rfc5322" title="&quot;Internet Message Format&quot;">RFC5322</a>]
                        [CFWS]                       ; per [<a href="./rfc5322" title="&quot;Internet Message Format&quot;">RFC5322</a>]
                                                     ; (as with FWS)

   The first domain-name indicates the DNS domain name about which the
   report was generated.  The second domain-name indicates the DNS
   domain name representing the Sending MTA generating the report.  The
   purpose of the "Report-ID:" portion of the field is to enable the
   Policy Domain to identify and ignore duplicate reports that might be
   sent by a Sending MTA.

   For instance, this is a possible Subject field for a report to the
   Policy Domain "example.net" from the Sending MTA
   "mail.sender.example.com".  It is line-wrapped as allowed by
   [<a href="./rfc5322" title="&quot;Internet Message Format&quot;">RFC5322</a>]:

              Subject: Report Domain: example.net
                  Submitter: mail.sender.example.com
                  Report-ID: &lt;735ff.e317+bf22029@mailexample.net&gt;























<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.1" href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a>.  Example Report</span>

      From: tlsrpt@mail.sender.example.com
          Date: Fri, May 09 2017 16:54:30 -0800
          To: mts-sts-tlsrpt@example.net
          Subject: Report Domain: example.net
              Submitter: mail.sender.example.com
              Report-ID: &lt;735ff.e317+bf22029@example.net&gt;
          TLS-Report-Domain: example.net
          TLS-Report-Submitter: mail.sender.example.com
          MIME-Version: 1.0
          Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type="tlsrpt";
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_024E_01CC9B0A.AFE54C00"
          Content-Language: en-us

          This is a multipart message in MIME format.

          ------=_NextPart_000_024E_01CC9B0A.AFE54C00
          Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
          Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

          This is an aggregate TLS report from mail.sender.example.com

          ------=_NextPart_000_024E_01CC9B0A.AFE54C00
          Content-Type: application/tlsrpt+gzip
          Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
          Content-Disposition: attachment;
              filename="mail.sender.example!example.com!
                        1013662812!1013749130.json.gz"

          &lt;gzipped content of report&gt;

     ------=_NextPart_000_024E_01CC9B0A.AFE54C00--
     ...

   Note that, when sending failure reports via SMTP, Sending MTAs MUST
   NOT honor MTA-STS or DANE TLSA failures.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>.  HTTPS Transport</span>

   The report MAY be delivered by POST to HTTPS.  If compressed, the
   report SHOULD use the media type "application/tlsrpt+gzip"; otherwise
   it SHOULD use the media type "application/tlsrpt+json" (see
   <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a>, "IANA Considerations").

   The receiving system MUST return a "successful" response from its
   HTTPS server, typically a 200 or 201 HTTP code [<a href="./rfc7231" title="&quot;Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content&quot;">RFC7231</a>].  Other
   codes could indicate a delivery failure and may be retried as per



<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   local sender policy.  The receiving system is not expected to process
   reports at receipt time and MAY store them for processing at a later
   time.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5" href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>.  Delivery Retry</span>

   In the event of a delivery failure, regardless of the delivery
   method, a sender SHOULD attempt redelivery for up to 24 hours after
   the initial attempt.  As previously stated, the reports are optional,
   so while it is ideal to attempt redelivery, it is not required.  If
   multiple retries are attempted, ideally they SHOULD be done with
   exponential backoff.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6" href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>.  Metadata Variances</span>

   As stated above, there are a variable number of ways to declare
   information about the data therein.  If any of the items declared via
   subject or filename disagree with the report, the report MUST be
   considered the authoritative source.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  IANA Considerations</span>

   The following are the IANA considerations discussed in this document.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Message Headers</span>

   Below is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Permanent
   Message Header Field registration information per [<a href="./rfc3864" title="&quot;Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields&quot;">RFC3864</a>].

             Header field name:           TLS-Report-Domain
             Applicable protocol:         mail
             Status:                      standard
             Author/Change controller:    IETF
             Specification document(s):   <a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>


             Header field name:           TLS-Report-Submitter
             Applicable protocol:         mail
             Status:                      standard
             Author/Change controller:    IETF
             Specification document(s):   <a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>










<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Report Type</span>

   This document creates a new registry for the "report-type" parameter
   to the Content-Type header field for the "multipart/report" top-level
   media type defined in [<a href="./rfc6522" title="&quot;The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages&quot;">RFC6522</a>].

   The registry name is "Report Type Registry", and the procedure for
   updating the registry will be "Specification Required" [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].

   An entry in this registry should contain:

   o  the report-type being registered

   o  one or more registered media types that can be used with this
      report-type

   o  the document containing the registration action

   o  an optional comment

   The initial entries are:

   Report-Type: tlsrpt
   Media Type: application/tlsrpt+gzip, application/tlsrpt+json
   Registered By: [<a href="./rfc8460">RFC8460</a>]
   Comment: Media types suitable for use with this report-type are
   defined in Sections <a href="#section-6.4">6.4</a> and <a href="#section-6.5">6.5</a> of [<a href="./rfc8460">RFC8460</a>]

   Report-Type: disposition-notification
   Media Type: message/disposition-notification
   Registered By: <a href="./rfc8098#section-10">[RFC8098], Section&nbsp;10</a>

   Report-Type: disposition-notification
   Media Type: message/global-disposition-notification
   Registered By: <a href="./rfc6533#section-6">[RFC6533], Section&nbsp;6</a>

   Report-Type: delivery-status
   Media Type: message/delivery-status
   Registered By: <a href="./rfc3464#section-6.2">[RFC3464], Section&nbsp;6.2</a>

   Report-Type: delivery-status
   Media Type: message/global-delivery-status
   Registered By: <a href="./rfc6533#section-6">[RFC6533], Section&nbsp;6</a>








<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  +gzip Media Type Suffix</span>

   This document registers a new media type suffix "+gzip".  The gzip
   format is a public domain, cross-platform, interoperable file storage
   and transfer format, specified in [<a href="./rfc1952" title="&quot;GZIP file format specification version 4.3&quot;">RFC1952</a>]; it supports compression
   and is used as the underlying representation by a variety of file
   formats.  The media type "application/gzip" has been registered for
   such files.  The suffix "+gzip" MAY be used with any media type whose
   representation follows that established for "application/gzip".  The
   registration form for the structured syntax suffix for use with media
   types is as follows:

   Type name: gzip file storage and transfer format.

   +suffix: +gzip

   References: [<a href="./rfc1952" title="&quot;GZIP file format specification version 4.3&quot;">RFC1952</a>] [<a href="./rfc6713" title="&quot;The 'application/zlib' and 'application/gzip' Media Types&quot;">RFC6713</a>]

   Encoding considerations: gzip is a binary encoding.

   Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of
   fragment identifiers specified for +gzip SHOULD be as specified for
   "application/gzip".  (At publication of this document, there is no
   fragment identification syntax defined for "application/gzip".)  The
   syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/
   yyy+gzip" SHOULD be processed as follows:

       For cases defined in +gzip, where the fragment identifier
       resolves per the +gzip rules, process as specified in
       +gzip.

       For cases defined in +gzip, where the fragment identifier does
       not resolve per the +gzip rules, process as specified in
       "xxx/yyy+gzip".

       For cases not defined in +gzip, process as specified in
       "xxx/yyy+gzip".

   Interoperability considerations: N/A

   Security considerations: gzip format doesn't provide confidentiality
   protection.  Integrity protection is provided by an Adler-32
   checksum, which is not cryptographically strong.  See also the
   security considerations of [<a href="./rfc6713" title="&quot;The 'application/zlib' and 'application/gzip' Media Types&quot;">RFC6713</a>].  Each individual media type
   registered with a +gzip suffix can have additional security
   considerations.  Additionally, gzip objects can contain multiple





<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   files and associated paths.  File paths must be validated when the
   files are extracted; a malicious file path could otherwise cause the
   extractor to overwrite application or system files.

   Contact: art@ietf.org

   Author/Change controller: Internet Engineering Task Force
   (iesg@ietf.org).

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4" href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  application/tlsrpt+json Media Type</span>

   This document registers multiple media types, beginning with Table 1
   below.

    +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+
    | Type        | Subtype        | File Ext    | Specification     |
    +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+
    | application | tlsrpt+json    |  .json      | <a href="#section-5.3">Section 5.3</a>       |
    +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+

                    Table 1: SMTP TLS Reporting Media Type

   Type name: application

   Subtype name: tlsrpt+json

   Required parameters: N/A

   Optional parameters: N/A

   Encoding considerations: Encoding considerations are identical to
   those specified for the "application/json" media type.  See
   [<a href="./rfc7493" title="&quot;The I-JSON Message Format&quot;">RFC7493</a>].

   Security considerations: Security considerations relating to SMTP TLS
   Reporting are discussed in <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a>.

   Interoperability considerations: This document specifies the format
   of conforming messages and the interpretation thereof.

   Published specification: <a href="./rfc8460#section-5.3">Section&nbsp;5.3 of RFC 8460</a>.

   Applications that use this media type: Mail User Agents (MUAs) and
   Mail Transfer Agents.







<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   Additional information:

      Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A

      Magic number(s): N/A

      File extension(s): ".json"

      Macintosh file type code(s): N/A

   Person &amp; email address to contact for further information:
   See the Authors' Addresses section.

   Intended usage: COMMON

   Restrictions on usage: N/A

   Author: See the Authors' Addresses section.

   Change controller: Internet Engineering Task Force (iesg@ietf.org).

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.5" href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>.  application/tlsrpt+gzip Media Type</span>

    +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+
    | Type        | Subtype        | File Ext    | Specification     |
    +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+
    | application | tlsrpt+gzip    |  .gz        | <a href="#section-5.3">Section 5.3</a>       |
    +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+

                    Table 2: SMTP TLS Reporting Media Type

   Type name: application

   Subtype name: tlsrpt+gzip

   Required parameters: N/A

   Optional parameters: N/A

   Encoding considerations: Binary

   Security considerations: Security considerations relating to SMTP TLS
   Reporting are discussed in <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a>.  Security considerations
   related to gzip compression are discussed in <a href="./rfc6713">RFC 6713</a>.

   Interoperability considerations: This document specifies the format
   of conforming messages and the interpretation thereof.




<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   Published specification: <a href="./rfc8460#section-5.3">Section&nbsp;5.3 of RFC 8460</a>.

   Applications that use this media type: Mail User Agents (MUAs) and
   Mail Transfer Agents.

   Additional information:

      Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A

      Magic number(s): The first two bytes are 0x1f, 0x8b.

      File extension(s): ".gz"

      Macintosh file type code(s): N/A

   Person &amp; email address to contact for further information:
   See the Authors' Addresses section.

   Intended usage: COMMON

   Restrictions on usage: N/A

   Author: See the Authors' Addresses section.

   Change controller: Internet Engineering Task Force (iesg@ietf.org).

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.6" href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>.  STARTTLS Validation Result Types</span>

   This document creates a new registry, "STARTTLS Validation Result
   Types".  The initial entries in the registry are:

              +-----------------------------+--------------+
              | Result Type                 |  Description |
              +-----------------------------+--------------+
              | starttls-not-supported      |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | certificate-host-mismatch   |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | certificate-expired         |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | tlsa-invalid                |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | dnssec-invalid              |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | dane-required               |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | certificate-not-trusted     |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | sts-policy-invalid          |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | sts-webpki-invalid          |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | validation-failure          |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              | sts-policy-fetch-error      |  <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> |
              +-----------------------------+--------------+





<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   The above entries are described in <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>, "Result Types".  New
   result types can be added to this registry using the "Expert Review"
   IANA registration policy.

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

   SMTP TLS Reporting provides visibility into misconfigurations or
   attempts to intercept or tamper with mail between hosts who support
   STARTTLS.  There are several security risks presented by the
   existence of this reporting channel:

   o  Flooding of the Aggregate Report URI (rua) endpoint: An attacker
      could flood the endpoint with excessive reporting traffic and
      prevent the receiving domain from accepting additional reports.
      This type of Denial-of-Service attack would limit visibility into
      STARTTLS failures, leaving the receiving domain blind to an
      ongoing attack.

   o  Untrusted content: An attacker could inject malicious code into
      the report, exploiting any vulnerabilities in the report-handling
      systems of the receiving domain.  Implementers are advised to take
      precautions against evaluating the contents of the report.

   o  Report snooping: An attacker could create a bogus TLSRPT record to
      receive statistics about a domain the attacker does not own.
      Since an attacker that is able to poison DNS is already able to
      receive counts of SMTP connections (and, absent DANE or MTA-STS
      policies, actual SMTP message payloads), this does not present a
      significant new vulnerability.

   o  Ignoring HTTPS validation when submitting reports: When reporting
      benign misconfigurations, it is likely that a misconfigured SMTP
      server may also mean a misconfigured HTTPS server; as a result,
      reporters who require HTTPS validity on the reporting endpoint may
      fail to alert administrators about such misconfigurations.
      Conversely, in the event of an actual attack, an attacker who
      wishes to create a gap in reporting and could intercept HTTPS
      reports could, just as easily, simply thwart the resolution of the
      TLSRPT TXT record or establishment of the TCP session to the HTTPS
      endpoint.  Furthermore, such a man-in-the-middle attacker could
      discover most or all of the metadata exposed in a report merely
      through passive observation.  As a result, we consider the risks
      of failure to deliver reports on misconfigurations to outweigh
      those of attackers intercepting reports.







<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   o  Reports as DDoS: TLSRPT allows specifying destinations for the
      reports that are outside the authority of the Policy Domain, which
      allows domains to delegate processing of reports to a partner
      organization.  However, an attacker who controls the Policy Domain
      DNS could also use this mechanism to direct the reports to an
      unwitting victim, flooding that victim with excessive reports.
      DMARC [<a href="./rfc7489" title="&quot;Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)&quot;">RFC7489</a>] defines a solution for verifying delegation to
      avoid such attacks; the need for this is greater with DMARC,
      however, because DMARC allows an attacker to trigger reports to a
      target from an innocent third party by sending mail to that third
      party (which triggers a report from the third party to the
      target).  In the case of TLSRPT, the attacker would have to induce
      the third party to send mail to the attacker in order to trigger
      reports from the third party to the victim; this reduces the risk
      of such an attack and the need for a verification mechanism.

   Finally, because TLSRPT is intended to help administrators discover
   man-in-the-middle attacks against transport-layer encryption,
   including attacks designed to thwart negotiation of encrypted
   connections (by downgrading opportunistic encryption or, in the case
   of MTA-STS, preventing discovery of a new MTA-STS Policy), we must
   also consider the risk that an adversary who can induce such a
   downgrade attack can also prevent discovery of the TLSRPT TXT record
   (and thus prevent discovery of the successful downgrade attack).
   Administrators are thus encouraged to deploy TLSRPT TXT records with
   a large TTL (reducing the window for successful application of
   transient attacks against DNS resolution of the record) or to deploy
   DNSSEC on the deploying zone.

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

   MTAs are generally considered public knowledge; however, the
   internals of how those MTAs are configured and the users of those
   MTAs may not be as public.  It should be noted that providing a
   receiving site with information about TLS failures may reveal
   information about the sender's configuration or even information
   about the senders themselves.  For example, sending a report may
   disclose what TLS implementation the sender uses, as the inability to
   negotiate a session may be a known incompatibility between two
   implementations.  This may, indirectly, leak information on the
   reporter's operating system or even region, if, for example, a rare
   TLS implementation is popular among certain users or in certain
   locations.








<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>.  Normative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC1952">RFC1952</a>]  Deutsch, P., "GZIP file format specification version 4.3",
              <a href="./rfc1952">RFC 1952</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC1952, May 1996,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1952">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1952</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3339">RFC3339</a>]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
              Timestamps", <a href="./rfc3339">RFC 3339</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3492">RFC3492</a>]  Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
              for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
              (IDNA)", <a href="./rfc3492">RFC 3492</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3492, March 2003,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3986">RFC3986</a>]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              <a href="./rfc3986">RFC 3986</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5234">RFC5234</a>]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, <a href="./rfc5234">RFC 5234</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5280">RFC5280</a>]  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", <a href="./rfc5280">RFC 5280</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5321">RFC5321</a>]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", <a href="./rfc5321">RFC 5321</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5322">RFC5322</a>]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", <a href="./rfc5322">RFC 5322</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322</a>&gt;.






<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC5891">RFC5891</a>]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", <a href="./rfc5891">RFC 5891</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5891, August 2010,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5891">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5891</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5952">RFC5952</a>]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", <a href="./rfc5952">RFC 5952</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6068">RFC6068</a>]  Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto'
              URI Scheme", <a href="./rfc6068">RFC 6068</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6376">RFC6376</a>]  Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
              "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
              <a href="./rfc6376">RFC 6376</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6522">RFC6522</a>]  Kucherawy, M., Ed., "The Multipart/Report Media Type for
              the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages",
              STD 73, <a href="./rfc6522">RFC 6522</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6522, January 2012,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6522">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6522</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6698">RFC6698</a>]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
              of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Protocol: TLSA", <a href="./rfc6698">RFC 6698</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August
              2012, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6713">RFC6713</a>]  Levine, J., "The 'application/zlib' and 'application/gzip'
              Media Types", <a href="./rfc6713">RFC 6713</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6713, August 2012,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6713">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6713</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7208">RFC7208</a>]  Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
              Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", <a href="./rfc7208">RFC 7208</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7208, April 2014,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7231">RFC7231</a>]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", <a href="./rfc7231">RFC 7231</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7405">RFC7405</a>]  Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF",
              <a href="./rfc7405">RFC 7405</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7405, December 2014,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7405">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7405</a>&gt;.





<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC7493">RFC7493</a>]  Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", <a href="./rfc7493">RFC 7493</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7671">RFC7671</a>]  Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "The DNS-Based
              Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Protocol: Updates
              and Operational Guidance", <a href="./rfc7671">RFC 7671</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7671,
              October 2015, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7671">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7671</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7672">RFC7672</a>]  Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "SMTP Security via
              Opportunistic DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities
              (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)", <a href="./rfc7672">RFC 7672</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7672, October 2015,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7672">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7672</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
              <a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC8461">RFC8461</a>]  Margolis, D., Risher, M., Ramakrishnan, B., Brotman, A.,
              and J. Jones, "SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-
              STS)", <a href="./rfc8461">RFC 8461</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8461, September 2018,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8461">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8461</a>&gt;.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC3207">RFC3207</a>]  Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
              Transport Layer Security", <a href="./rfc3207">RFC 3207</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3207,
              February 2002, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3207">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3207</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3464">RFC3464</a>]  Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
              for Delivery Status Notifications", <a href="./rfc3464">RFC 3464</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3464, January 2003,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3464">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3464</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3501">RFC3501</a>]  Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
              4rev1", <a href="./rfc3501">RFC 3501</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3864">RFC3864</a>]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp90">BCP 90</a>, <a href="./rfc3864">RFC 3864</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6533">RFC6533</a>]  Hansen, T., Ed., Newman, C., and A. Melnikov,
              "Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition
              Notifications", <a href="./rfc6533">RFC 6533</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6533, February
              2012, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6533">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6533</a>&gt;.



<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC7435">RFC7435</a>]  Dukhovni, V., "Opportunistic Security: Some Protection
              Most of the Time", <a href="./rfc7435">RFC 7435</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7435,
              December 2014, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7435">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7435</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7469">RFC7469</a>]  Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
              Extension for HTTP", <a href="./rfc7469">RFC 7469</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469, April
              2015, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7489">RFC7489</a>]  Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
              Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
              (DMARC)", <a href="./rfc7489">RFC 7489</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC8098">RFC8098</a>]  Hansen, T., Ed. and A. Melnikov, Ed., "Message Disposition
              Notification", STD 85, <a href="./rfc8098">RFC 8098</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8098,
              February 2017, &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8098">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8098</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC8126">RFC8126</a>]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
              <a href="./rfc8126">RFC 8126</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              &lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126</a>&gt;.






























<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>.  Example Reporting Policy</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.1" href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>.  Report Using MAILTO</span>

            _smtp._tls.mail.example.com. IN TXT \
                    "v=TLSRPTv1;rua=mailto:reports@example.com"

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.2" href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>.  Report Using HTTPS</span>

           _smtp._tls.mail.example.com. IN TXT \
                   "v=TLSRPTv1; \
                   rua=https://reporting.example.com/v1/tlsrpt"

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B" href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>.  Example JSON Report</span>

   Below is an example JSON report for messages from Company-X to
   Company-Y, where 100 sessions were attempted to Company-Y servers
   with an expired certificate, and 200 sessions were attempted to
   Company-Y servers that did not successfully respond to the "STARTTLS"
   command.  Additionally, 3 sessions failed due to
   "X509_V_ERR_PROXY_PATH_LENGTH_EXCEEDED".

   {
     "organization-name": "Company-X",
     "date-range": {
       "start-datetime": "2016-04-01T00:00:00Z",
       "end-datetime": "2016-04-01T23:59:59Z"
     },
     "contact-info": "sts-reporting@company-x.example",
     "report-id": "5065427c-23d3-47ca-b6e0-946ea0e8c4be",
     "policies": [{
       "policy": {
         "policy-type": "sts",
         "policy-string": ["version: STSv1","mode: testing",
               "mx: *.mail.company-y.example","max_age: 86400"],
         "policy-domain": "company-y.example",
         "mx-host": "*.mail.company-y.example"
       },
       "summary": {
         "total-successful-session-count": 5326,
         "total-failure-session-count": 303
       },
       "failure-details": [{
         "result-type": "certificate-expired",
         "sending-mta-ip": "2001:db8:abcd:0012::1",
         "receiving-mx-hostname": "mx1.mail.company-y.example",
         "failed-session-count": 100
       }, {



<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


         "result-type": "starttls-not-supported",
         "sending-mta-ip": "2001:db8:abcd:0013::1",
         "receiving-mx-hostname": "mx2.mail.company-y.example",
         "receiving-ip": "203.0.113.56",
         "failed-session-count": 200,
         "additional-information": "<a href="https://reports.company-x.example/report_info">https://reports.company-x.example/</a>
           <a href="https://reports.company-x.example/report_info">report_info</a> ? id = 5065427 c - 23 d3# StarttlsNotSupported "
       }, {
         "result-type": "validation-failure",
         "sending-mta-ip": "198.51.100.62",
         "receiving-ip": "203.0.113.58",
         "receiving-mx-hostname": "mx-backup.mail.company-y.example",
         "failed-session-count": 3,
         "failure-reason-code": "X509_V_ERR_PROXY_PATH_LENGTH_EXCEEDED"
       }]
     }]
   }


































<span class="grey">Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8460">RFC 8460</a>                   SMTP TLS Reporting             September 2018</span>


Contributors

   Laetitia Baudoin
   Google, Inc.
   lbaudoin@google.com

Authors' Addresses

   Daniel Margolis
   Google, Inc.

   Email: dmargolis@google.com


   Alexander Brotman
   Comcast, Inc.

   Email: alex_brotman@comcast.com


   Binu Ramakrishnan
   Oath, Inc.

   Email: prbinu@yahoo.com


   Janet Jones
   Microsoft, Inc.

   Email: janet.jones@microsoft.com


   Mark Risher
   Google, Inc.

   Email: risher@google.com















Margolis, et al.             Standards Track                   [Page 34]
</pre>