Network Working Group                                         R. Gellens
Request for Comments: 3206                                      QUALCOMM
Category: Standards Track                                  February 2002
        
Network Working Group                                         R. Gellens
Request for Comments: 3206                                      QUALCOMM
Category: Standards Track                                  February 2002

The SYS and AUTH POP Response Codes

SYS和AUTH POP响应代码

Status of this Memo

本备忘录的状况

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。

Copyright Notice

版权公告

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002年）。版权所有。

Abstract

摘要

This memo proposes two response codes: SYS and AUTH, which enable clients to unambiguously determine an optimal response to an authentication failure. In addition, a new capability (AUTH-RESP-CODE) is defined.

此备忘录提出了两个响应代码：SYS和AUTH，这使客户端能够明确地确定对身份验证失败的最佳响应。此外，还定义了一个新功能（AUTH-RESP-CODE）。

Table of Contents

目录 

    1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
    2.  Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
    3.  Background   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
    4.  The SYS Response Code   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    5.  The AUTH Response Code   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
    6.  The AUTH-RESP-CODE Capability   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    7.  IANA Considerations   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
    9.  References   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   10.  Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   11.  Full Copyright Statement   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
        
    1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
    2.  Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
    3.  Background   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
    4.  The SYS Response Code   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    5.  The AUTH Response Code   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
    6.  The AUTH-RESP-CODE Capability   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    7.  IANA Considerations   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
    9.  References   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   10.  Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   11.  Full Copyright Statement   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
1. Introduction
1. 介绍

RFC 2449 [POP3-EXT] defined extended [POP3] response codes, to give clients more information about errors so clients can respond more appropriately. In addition to the mechanism, two initial response codes were defined (IN-USE and LOGIN-DELAY), in an attempt to differentiate between authentication failures related to user credentials, and other errors.

RFC 2449[POP3-EXT]定义了扩展的[POP3]响应代码，为客户端提供有关错误的更多信息，以便客户端能够更恰当地响应。除了该机制外，还定义了两个初始响应代码（使用中和登录延迟），以区分与用户凭据相关的身份验证失败和其他错误。

In practice, these two response codes, while helpful, do not go far enough. This memo proposes two additional response codes: SYS and AUTH, which enable clients to unambiguously determine an optimal response to an authentication failure.

实际上，这两个响应代码虽然有用，但还不够。此备忘录提出了两个额外的响应代码：SYS和AUTH，这使客户端能够明确地确定对身份验证失败的最佳响应。

In addition, a new capability (AUTH-RESP-CODE) is defined.

此外，还定义了一个新功能（AUTH-RESP-CODE）。

2. Conventions Used in this Document
2. 本文件中使用的公约

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 RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].

本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[关键词]中所述进行解释。

3. Background
3. 出身背景

RFC 2449 [POP3-EXT] introduced the IN-USE and LOGIN-DELAY response codes. The intent is to allow clients to clearly determine the underlying cause of a failure in order to respond. For example, clients need to know if the user should be asked for new credentials, or if the POP3 session should simply be tried again later. (Some deployed POP3 clients attempt to parse the text of authentication failure errors, looking for strings known to be issued by various servers which indicate the mailbox is locked.)

RFC 2449[POP3-EXT]引入了在用和登录延迟响应代码。其目的是让客户机清楚地确定故障的根本原因，以便做出响应。例如，客户端需要知道是否应该向用户请求新凭据，或者是否应该稍后重试POP3会话。（一些已部署的POP3客户端试图解析身份验证失败错误的文本，查找由各种服务器发出的表示邮箱已锁定的字符串。）

IN-USE indicates that an exclusive lock could not be obtained for the user's mailbox, probably because another POP3 session is in progress. LOGIN-DELAY informs the client that the user has not waited long enough before authenticating again.

IN-USE表示无法获取用户邮箱的独占锁，可能是因为另一个POP3会话正在进行。LOGIN-DELAY通知客户端用户在再次验证之前等待的时间不够长。

However, there are other error conditions which do not require new credentials, some of which should be brought to the user's attention.

但是，还有其他不需要新凭据的错误情况，其中一些错误情况应该引起用户的注意。

Despite the IN-USE and LOGIN-DELAY responses, clients cannot be sure if any other error requires new user credentials.

尽管有使用中和登录延迟响应，但客户端无法确定是否有任何其他错误需要新的用户凭据。

4. The SYS Response Code
4. 系统响应代码

The SYS response code announces that a failure is due to a system error, as opposed to the user's credentials or an external condition. It is hierarchical, with two possible second-level codes: TEMP and PERM. (Case is not significant at any level of the hierarchy.)

SYS响应代码宣布故障是由系统错误引起的，与用户凭据或外部条件相反。它是分层的，有两个可能的二级代码：TEMP和PERM。（在层次结构的任何级别，大小写都不重要。）

SYS/TEMP indicates a problem which is likely to be temporary in nature, and therefore there is no need to alarm the user, unless the failure persists. Examples might include a central resource which is currently locked or otherwise temporarily unavailable, insufficient free disk or memory, etc.

SYS/TEMP表示可能是暂时性的问题，因此无需向用户发出警报，除非故障持续存在。示例可能包括当前已锁定或暂时不可用的中心资源、可用磁盘或内存不足等。

SYS/PERM is used for problems which are unlikely to be resolved without intervention. It is appropriate to alert the user and suggest that the organization's support or assistance personnel be contacted. Examples include corrupted mailboxes, system configuration errors, etc.

SYS/PERM用于未经干预不可能解决的问题。适当的做法是提醒用户并建议联系组织的支持或协助人员。示例包括邮箱损坏、系统配置错误等。

The SYS response code is valid with an -ERR response to any command.

SYS响应代码对任何命令的-ERR响应都有效。

5. The AUTH Response Code
5. 身份验证响应代码

The AUTH response code informs the client that there is a problem with the user's credentials. This might be an incorrect password, an unknown user name, an expired account, an attempt to authenticate in violation of policy (such as from an invalid location or during an unauthorized time), or some other problem.

身份验证响应代码通知客户端用户的凭据有问题。这可能是错误的密码、未知的用户名、过期的帐户、违反策略的身份验证尝试（例如从无效位置或在未经授权的时间内）或其他一些问题。

The AUTH response code is valid with an -ERR response to any authentication command including AUTH, USER (see note), PASS, or APOP.

AUTH响应代码对任何身份验证命令（包括AUTH、USER（请参见注释）、PASS或APOP）的-ERR响应有效。

Servers which include the AUTH response code with any authentication failure SHOULD support the CAPA command [POP3-EXT] and SHOULD include the AUTH-RESP-CODE capability in the CAPA response. AUTH-RESP-CODE assures the client that only errors with the AUTH code are caused by credential problems.

包含身份验证失败的身份验证响应代码的服务器应支持CAPA命令[POP3-EXT]，并应在CAPA响应中包含身份验证响应代码功能。AUTH-RESP-CODE向客户端确保只有身份验证代码错误是由凭据问题引起的。

NOTE: Returning the AUTH response code to the USER command reveals to the client that the specified user exists. It is strongly RECOMMENDED that the server not issue this response code to the USER command.

注意：将AUTH响应代码返回给USER命令会向客户端显示指定的用户存在。强烈建议服务器不要向用户命令发出此响应代码。

6. The AUTH-RESP-CODE Capability
6. AUTH-RESP-CODE功能

CAPA tag: AUTH-RESP-CODE

CAPA标记：AUTH-RESP-CODE

Arguments: none

论点：无

Added commands: none

添加命令：无

Standard commands affected: none

受影响的标准命令：无

Announced states / possible differences: both / no

宣布的州/可能的差异：两者/否

Commands valid in states: n/a

在以下状态下有效的命令：不适用

Specification reference: this document

规范参考：本文件

Discussion: The AUTH-RESP-CODE capability indicates that the server includes the AUTH response code with any authentication error caused by a problem with the user's credentials.

讨论：AUTH-RESP-CODE功能表示服务器包含AUTH响应代码，其中包含由用户凭据问题引起的任何身份验证错误。

7. IANA Considerations
7. IANA考虑

IANA has added the AUTH-RESP-CODE capability to the list of POP3 capabilities (established by RFC 2449 [POP3-EXT]).

IANA已将AUTH-RESP-CODE功能添加到POP3功能列表中（由RFC 2449[POP3-EXT]建立）。

IANA has also added the SYS and AUTH response codes to the list of POP3 response codes (also established by RFC 2449 [POP3-EXT]).

IANA还将SYS和AUTH响应代码添加到POP3响应代码列表中（也由RFC 2449[POP3-EXT]建立）。

8. Security Considerations
8. 安全考虑

Section 5, The AUTH Response Code, discusses the security issues related to use of the AUTH response code with the USER command.

第5节“身份验证响应代码”讨论了与用户命令使用身份验证响应代码相关的安全问题。

9. References
9. 工具书类

[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[关键词]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。

[POP3] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol -- Version 3", STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.

[POP3]迈尔斯，J.和M.罗斯，“邮局协议——第3版”，STD 53，RFC 1939，1996年5月。

[POP3-EXT] Gellens, R., Newman, C. and L. Lundblade, "POP3 Extension Mechanism", RFC 2449, November 1998.

[POP3-EXT]Gellens，R.，Newman，C.和L.Lundblade，“POP3扩展机制”，RFC 2449，1998年11月。

10. Author's Address
10. 作者地址

Randall Gellens QUALCOMM Incorporated 5775 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121-2779 U.S.A.

美国加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥Morehouse大道5775号美国高通公司Randall Gellens 92121-2779。 

   Phone: +1 858 651 5115
   EMail: randy@qualcomm.com
        
   Phone: +1 858 651 5115
   EMail: randy@qualcomm.com
11. Full Copyright Statement
11. 完整版权声明

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002年）。版权所有。

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。

Acknowledgement

确认

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.

RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。