<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
    which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
    There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. 
    An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->

<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4033 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4033.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4035 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4035.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4880 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4880.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5248 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5248.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5321 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5321.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5751 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5751.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3207 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3207.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6125 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6125.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6698 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6698.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7672 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7672.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1939 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1939.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3501 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3501.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-uta-mta-sts SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-uta-mta-sts-07.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
    please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
    (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
    (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-uta-smtp-require-tls-00" ipr="trust200902">
 <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
    ipr values: trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902,
       or pre5378Trust200902
    you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
    they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

 <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

 <front>

   <title>SMTP Require TLS Option</title>

   <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

   <author fullname="Jim Fenton" initials="J.L."
           surname="Fenton">

     <organization>Altmode Networks</organization>

     <address>
       <postal>
         <street> </street>
         <city>Los Altos</city>
         <region>California</region>
         <code>94024</code>
         <country>USA</country>
       </postal>

       <email>fenton@bluepopcorn.net</email>

       <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
   </author>

   <date year="2017" />

   <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill 
        in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill 
	 in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is 
	 necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the 
	 purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to 
	 specify just the year. -->

   <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

   <area>General</area>

   <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>

   <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
        IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	 If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
        which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

   <keyword>SMTP</keyword>

   <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
        files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
        output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
        keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

   <abstract>
     <t>The SMTP STARTTLS option, used in negotiating transport-level
     encryption of SMTP connections, is not as useful from a security
     standpoint as it might be because of its opportunistic nature;
     message delivery is prioritized over security. This document
     describes a complementary SMTP service extension, REQUIRETLS. If
     the REQUIRETLS option is used when sending a message, it asserts
     a request on the part of the message sender to override the
     default negotiation of TLS, either by requiring that TLS be
     negotiated when the message is relayed, or by requesting that
     policy mechanisms such as SMTP STS and DANE be ignored when
     relaying a high priority message.</t>
   </abstract>

 </front>

 <middle>
   <section title="Introduction">
     <t>The <xref target="RFC5321">SMTP</xref> <xref
     target="RFC3207">STARTTLS service extension</xref> provides a
     means by which an SMTP server and client can establish a
     Transport Layer Security (TLS) protected session for the
     transmission of email messages. By default, TLS is used only upon
     mutual agreement (successful negotiation) of STARTTLS between the
     client and server; if this is not possible, the message is sent
     without transport encryption. Furthermore, it is common practice
     for the client to negotiate TLS even if the SMTP server's
     certificate fails to authenticate it.</t>

     <t>Policy mechanisms such as <xref target="RFC7672">DANE</xref>
     and <xref target="I-D.ietf-uta-mta-sts">SMTP STS</xref> may
     impose requirements for the use of TLS for email destined for
     some domains. However, such policies do not allow the sender to
     specify which messages are more sensitive and require
     transport-level encryption, and which ones are urgent and ought
     to be relayed even if TLS cannot be negotiated
     successfully.</t>

     <t>The default opportunistic nature of SMTP TLS enables several
     "on the wire" attacks on SMTP security between MTAs. These
     include passive eavesdropping on connections for which TLS is not
     used, interference in the SMTP protocol to prevent TLS from being
     negotiated (presumably followed by eavesdropping), and insertion
     of a man-in-the-middle attacker taking advantage of the lack of
     server authentication by the client. Attacks are described
     in more detail in the Security Considerations section of this
     document.</t>

     <t>The REQUIRETLS SMTP service extension allows the SMTP client
     to specify that a given message sent during a particular session
     MUST be sent over a TLS protected session with specified security
     characteristics, or conversely that delivery should be
     prioritized over ability to negotiate TLS. For messages requiring
     TLS negotiation, it also requires that the SMTP server advertise
     that it supports REQUIRETLS, in effect promising that it
     will honor the requirement to enforce TLS transmission and
     REQUIRETLS support for onward transmission of those messages.</t>

     <section title="Requirements Language">
       <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
       "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
       document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
       target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
     </section>
   </section>

   <section anchor="service_extension" title="The REQUIRETLS Service Extension">
     <t><list style="numbers">
       <t>The textual name of the extension is "Require TLS".</t>
       <t>The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
       "REQUIRETLS".</t>
       
       <t>One MAIL FROM option is defined
       by this extension.</t>
       
       <t>Two new SMTP status codes are defined by this extension to
       convey error conditions resulting from failure of the client to
       negotiate a TLS connection with the required security and as a
       result of an attempt to send to a server not also supporting
       the REQUIRETLS extension.</t>
     </list></t>

     <t>In order to specify REQUIRETLS treatment for a given message,
     the REQUIRETLS option is specified on the MAIL FROM command when
     that message is transmitted. With the exception of REQUIRETLS=NO
     (described below), this option MUST only be specified in the
     context of an SMTP session meeting the security requirements that
     have been specified:
     <list style="symbols">
       <t>The session itself MUST employ TLS transmission, unless the
       NO parameter is specified.</t>
       <t>Any server authentication requirements included as an option to
       the REQUIRETLS option (see below) MUST have been satisfied in
       establishing the current session.</t>
       <t>The SMTP server advertises that it supports REQUIRETLS.</t>
     </list>
     </t>

     <t>An optional parameter to the REQUIRETLS MAIL FROM option
     specifies the requirements for server authentication that
     MUST be used for any onward transmission of the following
     message. The parameter takes the form of either a single value
     or comma-separated list, separated from the REQUIRETLS option by a single "="
     (equals-sign) character. If present, the parameter MUST take one
     or more of the following values:</t>

     <t><list style="symbols">

       <t>CHAIN - The certificate presented by the SMTP server MUST
       verify successfully in a trust chain leading to a certificate
       trusted by the SMTP client. The choice of trusted (root)
       certificates by the client is at their own discretion. The
       client MAY choose to use the certificate set maintained by the
       CA/B forum [citation needed] for this purpose.</t>

       <t>DANE - The certificate presented by the SMTP server MUST
       verify succesfully using DANE as specified in <xref
       target="RFC7672">RFC&nbsp;7672</xref>.</t>

       <t>DNSSEC - The server MUST confirm that any MX record or CNAME lookup
       used to locate the SMTP server must be <xref
       target="RFC4035">DNSSEC</xref> signed and
       valid.</t>

       <t>NO - The SMTP client SHOULD attempt to send the message
       regardless of its ability to negotiate STARTTLS with the SMTP
       server, ignoring policy-based mechanisms, if any, asserted by the
       recipient domain. Nevertheless, the client MAY negotiate
       STARTTLS with the server if available. If the NO parameter is
       present, any other REQUIRETLS parameter MUST NOT be used.</t>
     </list></t>

     <t>The CHAIN and DANE parameters are additive; if both are
     specified, either method of certificate validation is
     acceptable. If neither CHAIN nor DANE is specified,
     the certificate presented by the SMTP server is not required to
     be verified.</t>
     
   </section>

   <section anchor="semantics" title="REQUIRETLS Semantics">
     <section anchor="receipt" title="REQUIRETLS Receipt Requirements">
       <t>Upon receipt of the REQUIRETLS option on a MAIL FROM command
       during the receipt of a message, an SMTP server MUST tag that
       message as needing REQUIRETLS handling with the specified
       option(s). The manner in which this tagging takes place is
       implementation-dependent. If the message is being locally
       aliased and redistributed to multiple addresses, all instances
       of the message MUST be tagged in the same manner.</t>
     </section>
     
     <section anchor="sender" title="REQUIRETLS Sender Requirements">
       <section anchor="yestls" title="Sending with TLS Required">
       <t>When sending a message tagged with REQUIRETLS other than the
       REQUIRETLS=NO option, the sending (client) MTA MUST:

       <list style="numbers">

	 <t>Look up the SMTP server to which the message is to be sent
	 as described in <xref target="RFC5321"></xref> Section
	 5.1. If the DNSSEC option is included in the message tag, the
	 MX record lookups in this process MUST use DNSSEC
	 verification and the response(s) MUST be DNSSEC-signed in
	 order to ensure the integrity of the <xref
	 target="RFC6125">resource identifier</xref> used to
	 authenticate the SMTP server.</t>
	 
	 <t>Open an SMTP session with the peer SMTP server using the
	 EHLO verb. The server MUST advertise the REQUIRETLS
	 capability.</t>
	 
	 <t>Establish a TLS-protected SMTP session with its peer SMTP
	 server and authenticate the server's certificate with the
	 specified authentication method as specified in <xref
	 target="RFC6125"></xref> or <xref target="RFC6698"></xref> as
	 applicable.</t>

	 <t>The SMTP client SHOULD also require that meaningfully
	 secure cipher algorithms and key lengths be negotiated with
	 the server. The choices of key lengths and algorithms change
	 over time, so a specific requirement is not presented
	 here.</t>

       </list></t>

       <t>If any of the above steps fail, the client SHOULD issue a
       QUIT to the server and repeat steps 2-4 with each host
       on the recipient domain's list of MX hosts in an attempt to
       find a mail path that meets the sender's requirements. If there
       are no more MX hosts or if the MX record lookup is not
       DNSSEC-protected and DNSSEC verification is required, the
       client MUST NOT transmit the message and MUST issue an SMTP
       QUIT command to the server. The client MAY send other,
       unprotected, messages to that server prior to issuing the QUIT
       if it has any.</t>
       
       <t>Following such a failure, the SMTP client MUST send a
       non-delivery notification to the reverse-path of the failed
       message as described in section 3.6 of <xref target="RFC5321" />. The
       following <xref target="RFC5248">status codes</xref> SHOULD be used:

       <list style="symbols">
	 <t>DNSSEC lookup failure: 5.x.x DNSSEC lookup required</t>
	 <t>REQUIRETLS not supported by server: 5.7.x REQUIRETLS
	 needed</t>
	 <t>Unable to establish TLS-protected SMTP session: 5.7.10
	 Encryption needed</t>
       </list></t>

       <t>Refer to Section 4. for further requirements regarding
       non-delivery messages.</t>

       <t>If all REQUIRETLS requirements have been met, transmit the
       message, issuing the REQUIRETLS option on the MAIL FROM command
       with the required option(s), if any.</t>

       </section>
       <section anchor="maytls" title="Sending with TLS Optional">
	 <t>Messages tagged REQUIRETLS=NO are handled differently from
	 other REQUIRETLS messages, as follows. When sending a message
	 tagged with REQUIRETLS=NO, the sending (client) MTA MUST:
	 <list style="symbols">
	   <t>Look up the SMTP server to which the message is to be
	   sent as described in <xref target="RFC5321"></xref> Section
	   5.1.</t>
	   
	   <t>Open an SMTP session with the peer SMTP server using the
	   EHLO verb. Attempt to negotiate STARTTLS if possible, and
	   follow any policy published by the recipient domain, but do
	   not fail if this is unsuccessful.</t>
	   
	   <t>If the server does not advertise the REQUIRETLS
	   capability, send the message in the usual manner (without
	   the REQUIRETLS option, because the server will not understand the
	   option).</t>
	   
	   <t>If the server advertises the REQUIRETLS capability, send
	   the message with the REQUIRETLS=NO option.</t>
	 </list>
	 </t>

	 <t>Some SMTP servers that are configured to expect STARTTLS
	 connections as a matter of policy may not accept messages in
	 the absence of STARTTLS. This MUST be expected, and a
	 non-delivery notification returned to the sender.</t>

	 <t>Messages tagged with the REQUIRETLS=NO option will be sent
	 without the option to SMTP servers not supporting
	 REQUIRETLS. REQUIRETLS=NO MAY therefore not persist through
	 multiple email relay hops.</t>

	 

       </section>
       
     </section>

     <section anchor="submission" title="REQUIRETLS Submission">
       <t>An MUA or other agent making the initial introduction of a
       message to SMTP has authority to decide whether to require TLS,
       and if so, using what authentication method(s). It does so by
       issuing the REQUIRETLS option in the MAIL FROM command during
       message submission. This MAY be done based on a user interface
       selection, on a header field included in the message, or based
       on policy. The manner in which the decision to require TLS is
       made is implementation-dependent and is beyond the scope of
       this specification.</t>
     </section>

     <section anchor="delivery" title="Delivery of REQUIRETLS messages">
       <t>Messages are usually retrieved by end users using protocols
       other than SMTP such as <xref target="RFC3501">IMAP</xref>,
       <xref target="RFC1939">POP</xref>, or web mail systems. Mail
       delivery agents supporting REQUIRETLS SHOULD require that
       retrieval of messages requiring transport encryption take
       place over authenticated, encrypted channels.</t>
     </section>
   </section>

     <section anchor="errors" title="Non-delivery message handling">

       <t>Non-delivery ("bounce") messages usually contain important
       metadata about the message to which they refer, including the
       original message header. They therefore MUST be protected in
       the same manner as the original message. All non-delivery
       messages, whether resulting from a REQUIRETLS error or some
       other, MUST employ REQUIRETLS using the same authentication
       method(s) as the message that caused the error to occur.</t>

       <t>It should be noted that the path from the origination of an
       error bounce message back to the MAIL FROM address may not
       share the same REQUIRETLS support as the forward
       path. Therefore, users of REQUIRETLS (other than REQUIRETLS=NO)
       are advised to make sure that they are capable of receiving
       mail using REQUIRETLS at the same authentication method(s) as
       messages they send. Otherwise, such non-delivery messages will
       be lost.</t>

       <t>If unable to send a bounce message due to a REQUIRETLS
       failure (the return path not supporting the TLS requirements in
       the original message), the MTA sending the bounce message MAY
       send a redacted non-delivery message to the postmaster of the
       domain identified in the envelope-From address identifying the
       message only by Message-ID and indicating the type of
       failure. The original From, Return-path, To, Sender, Cc, and
       related header fields MUST NOT be included in this message.</t>

       <t>Senders of messages specifying REQUIRETLS (other than
       REQUIRETLS=NO) are advised to consider the increased likelihood that
       bounce messages will be lost as a result of REQUIRETLS return
       path failure.</t>
     </section>

     <section anchor="lists" title="Mailing list considerations">

       <t>Mailing lists, upon receipt of a message, originate new
       messages to list addresses, as distinct from an aliasing
       operation that redirects the original message, in some cases to
       multiple recipients. The requirement to preserve the REQUIRETLS
       tag and options therefore does not extend to mailing
       lists. REQUIRETLS users SHOULD be made aware of this limitation
       so that they use caution when sending to
       mailing lists and do not assume that REQUIRETLS applies to
       messages from the list operator to list members.</t>

       <t>Mailing list operators MAY apply REQUIRETLS requirements in
       incoming messages to the resulting messages they originate. If
       this is done, they SHOULD also apply these requirements to
       administrative traffic, such as messages to moderators
       requesting approval of messages.</t>
     </section>


   <!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->

   <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
     <t>If published as an RFC, this draft requests the addition of
     the keyword REQUIRETLS to the <xref target="MailParams">SMTP
     Service Extensions Registry</xref>.</t>

     <t>If published as an RFC, this draft also requests the creation
     of a registry, REQUIRETLS Security Requirements, to be initially
     populated with the CHAIN, DANE, DNSSEC, and NO keywords.</t>

     <t>If published as an RFC, this draft requests the addition of an
     entry to the <xref
     target="SMTPStatusCodes">Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Enhanced Status
     Codes Registry</xref> in the 5.7.YYY
     range to indicate lack of REQUIRETLS support by an SMTP server to
     which a message is being routed.</t>

     <t>This section is to be removed during conversion into an RFC by
     the RFC Editor.</t>
   </section>

   <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
       <t>The purpose of REQUIRETLS is to improve communications
       security for email by giving the originator of a message an
       expectation that it will be transmitted in an encrypted form
       "over the wire". When used, REQUIRETLS changes the traditional
       behavior of email transmission, which favors delivery over the
       ability to send email messages using transport-layer security,
       to one in which requested security takes precedence over
       delivery and domain-level policy.</t>

       <t>The following considerations apply to STARTTLS other than
       the STARTTLS=NO option, since messages specifying that option
       are specifying less concern with transport security.</t>

       <section anchor="Passive" title="Passive attacks">
	 <t>REQUIRETLS is generally effective against passive
	 attackers who are merely trying to eavesdrop on an SMTP
	 exchange between an SMTP client and server. This assumes, of
	 course, the cryptographic integrity of the TLS connection
	 being used.</t>
       </section>

       <section anchor="Active" title="Active attacks">

	 <t>Active attacks against TLS encrypted SMTP connections can
	 take many forms. One such attack is to interfere in the
	 negotiation by changing the STARTTLS command to something
	 illegal such as XXXXXXXX. This causes TLS negotiation to fail
	 and messages to be sent in the clear, where they can be
	 intercepted. REQUIRETLS detects the failure of STARTTLS and
	 declines to send the message rather than send it
	 insecurely.</t>

	 <t>A second form of attack is a man-in-the-middle attack
	 where the attacker terminates the TLS connection rather than
	 the intended SMTP server. This is possible when, as is
	 commonly the case, the SMTP client either does not verify the
	 server's certificate or establishes the connection even when
	 the verification fails. The REQUIRETLS CHAIN and DANE options
	 allow the message sender to specify that successful
	 certificate validation, using either or both of two different
	 methods, is required before sending the message.</t>

	 <t>Another active attack involves the spoofing of DNS MX
	 records of the recipient domain. An attacker having this
	 capability could cause the message to be redirected to a mail
	 server under the attacker's own control, which would
	 presumably have a valid certificate. The REQUIRETLS DNSSEC
	 option allows the message sender to require that valid <xref
	 target="RFC4033">DNSSEC</xref> signatures be obtained when
	 locating the recipient's mail server, in order to address
	 that attack.</t>

	 <t>In addition to support of the DNSSEC option, domains
	 receiving email SHOULD deploy DNSSEC and SMTP clients SHOULD
	 deploy DNSSEC verification.</t>
       </section>

       <section anchor="badactor" title="Bad Actor MTAs">

	 <t>A bad-actor MTA along the message transmission path could
	 misrepresent its support of REQUIRETLS and/or actively strip
	 REQUIRETLS tags from messages it handles. However, since
	 intermediate MTAs are already trusted with the cleartext of
	 messages they handle, and are not part of the threat model
	 for transport-layer security, they are also not part of the
	 threat model for REQUIRETLS.</t>
	 
	 <t>It should be reemphasized that since SMTP TLS is a
	 transport-layer security protocol, messages sent using
	 REQUIRETLS are not encrypted end-to-end and are visible to
	 MTAs that are part of the message delivery path. Messages
	 containing sensitive information that MTAs should not have
	 access to MUST be sent using end-to-end content encryption
	 such as <xref target="RFC4880">OpenPGP</xref> or <xref
	 target="RFC5751">S/MIME</xref>.</t>
       </section>
   </section>

   <section anchor="acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
     <t>The author would like to acknowledge many helpful suggestions
     on the ietf-smtp and uta mailing lists, in particular those
     of Viktor Dukhovni, Tony Finch, Jeremy Harris, Arvel Hathcock,
     John Klensin, John Levine, Rolf Sonneveld, and Per Thorsheim.</t>

   </section>

     <section anchor="history" title="Revision History">

       <t>To be removed by RFC Editor upon publication as an RFC.</t>

       <section title="Changes since fenton-03 Draft">
	 <t><list style="symbols">
	   <t>Wording improvements from Rolf Sonneveld review 22 July
	   2017</t>
	   <t>A few copy edits</t>
	   <t>Conversion from individual to UTA WG draft</t>
	 </list></t>
       </section>

       <section title="Changes Since -02 Draft">
	 <t><list style="symbols">
	   <t>Incorporation of "MAY TLS" functionality as
	   REQUIRETLS=NO per suggestion on UTA WG mailing list.</t>
	   <t>Additional guidance on bounce messages</t>
	 </list></t>
       </section>

       <section title="Changes Since -01 Draft">
	 <t><list style="symbols">
	   <t>Specified retries when multiple MX hosts exist for a
	   given domain.</t>
	   <t>Clarified generation of non-delivery messages</t>
	   <t>Specified requirements for application of REQUIRETLS to mail forwarders
	   and mailing lists.</t>
	   <t>Clarified DNSSEC requirements to include MX lookup only.</t>
	   <t>Corrected terminology regarding message retrieval
	   vs. delivery.</t>
	   <t>Changed category to standards track.</t>

	 </list></t>
       </section>
       <section title="Changes Since -00 Draft">
	 
	 <t><list style="symbols">
	 <t>Conversion of REQUIRETLS from an SMTP verb to a MAIL FROM
	 parameter to better associate REQUIRETLS requirements with
	 transmission of individual messages.</t>

	 <t>Addition of an option to require DNSSEC lookup of the
	 remote mail server, since this affects the common name of the
	 certificate that is presented.</t>

	 <t>Clarified the wording to more clearly state that TLS
	 sessions must be established and not simply that STARTTLS is
	 negotiated.</t>

	 <t>Introduced need for minimum encryption standards (key
	 lengths and algorithms)</t>

	 <t>Substantially rewritten Security Considerations section</t>

	 
       </list></t>
       

     </section>
     

   </section>

 </middle>

 <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

 <back>
   <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

   <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
    1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
    2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
       (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

    Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
    If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
    directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
    with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
    filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

   <references title="Normative References">
     <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
     &RFC2119;
     &RFC3207;
     &RFC4035;
     &RFC5248;
     &RFC5321;
     &RFC6125;
     &RFC6698;

     <reference anchor="MailParams"
                target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters">
       <front>
         <title>IANA Mail Parameters</title>

         <author>
           <organization>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)</organization>
         </author>

         <date year="2007" />
       </front>
     </reference>
     <reference anchor="SMTPStatusCodes"
                target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes">
       <front>
         <title>Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Enhanced Status
	 Codes Registry</title>

         <author>
           <organization>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)</organization>
         </author>

         <date year="2008" />
       </front>
     </reference>

   </references>

   <references title="Informative References">
     <!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->

     &RFC1939;
     &RFC3501;
     &RFC4033;
     &RFC4880;
     &RFC5751;
     &RFC7672;
     &I-D.ietf-uta-mta-sts;
     
     <!-- A reference written by by an organization not a person. -->

   </references>

 </back>
</rfc>
