| Internet-Draft | Structured Email | July 2024 |
| Happel | Expires 9 January 2025 | [Page] |
This document specifies how a machine-readable version of the content of email messages can be added to those messages.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 January 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Information on websites and in email messages mostly addresses human readers. However, various attempts have been made to make such information - fully or in part - machine-readable, so that tools can assist users in dealing with that information more efficiently.¶
One widespread approach is the usage of [SchemaOrg] vocabulary which can be embedded in the HTML markup of websites. It is then crawled by web search engines and used to improve the quality of search result snippets (e.g., by showing displaying ratings, opening hours, or contact information).¶
Similarly, a number of web shops, hotels, or airlines include Schema.org vocabulary in order receipt email messages sent to customers. This information is extracted and used by some ISPs and open source tools ([SchemaOrgEmail]). However, these implementations differ in many details.¶
The goal of this specification is to provide a clear and comprehensive specification for this practice and to provide ground for potential future extensions.¶
The terms "message" and "email message" refer to "electronic mail messages" or "emails" as specified in [RFC5322]. The term "Message User Agent" (MUA) denotes an email client application as per [RFC5598].¶
The terms "machine-readable data" and "structured data" are used in contrast to "human-readable" messages and denote information expressed "in a structured format (..) which can be consumed by another program using consistent processing logic" [MachineReadable].¶
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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
In order to exchange structured data, one needs to chose a formal language and a serialization format. Based on this, vocabularies can be helpful to establish a shared understanding of structured data among heterogeneous senders and receivers.¶
The Resource Description Framework ([RDF]) is a formal language for knowledge representation standardized by the W3C. It is already used for annotating websites and emails, as it is underlying [SchemaOrg]. Among the various serializations for RDF, JSON-LD ([JSONLD]) has become the most commonly used serialization used on websites ([WDCStats]).¶
Hence, structured data in email messages SHOULD be expressed in the JSON-LD serialization of RDF.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/1¶
Using RDF/JSON-LD, users are free to express any kind of information in structured data. For reuse and reference however, it is common to agree upon certain core concepts/entities and properties for a certain domain. Those are typically collected and shared in so-called vocabularies.¶
[SchemaOrg] is a widespread vocabulary, which was design for annotating content on websites. A small subset of its concepts is already used by email senders and processed by email providers.¶
Users that want to add structured data into email message SHOULD use concepts from [SchemaOrg], if they fit their use case. They MAY however use any valid JSON-LD.¶
There might also be certain vocabularies for email-specific use cases (such as [I-D.happel-sml-structured-vacation-notices-00]), that will be specifically endorsed by the IETF or by respective RFCs.¶
MUAs may choose freely if and how to use structured data extracted from messages. If they do not explictly support a certain vocabulary, MUAs may also rely on extensions or passing data to outside applications, similar to the case of MIME body parts.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/2¶
This section discusses the placement of structured data within email messages and identifiers for referencing between structured data and other parts of a message.¶
This document targets structured data describing the content of an email message itself. Since users may add other arbitrary structured data (e.g., as MIME body parts of type "application/ld+json") to an email message, we need to define which kinds of structured data are supposed to be representative of the email message content.¶
For this, we distinguish the cases of full, partial, and non-representation.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/3¶
If structured data is intended by the sender to fully describe the human readable content of an email message, it MUST be added as a multipart/alternative entity with the content type application/ld+json.¶
The email message SHOULD in this case also contain a text/plain and a text/html version of the content.¶
MUAs supporting this specification SHOULD prefer the application/ld+json representation when receiving such email messages if they are able to process the used vocabulary or are able to process the structured data otherwise.¶
If structured data is intended to describe only a subset of the human-readable content, it must be enclosed in a <script> HTML tag within the HTML <body> tag of the text/html body part of the email message (see example at the end).¶
MUAs receiving such messages may use the structured data to provide an enhanced user experience.¶
In the case of non-representation, there is no relation between structured data and the human readable content.¶
This may be useful for special scenarios, such as embedding "preemptive" structured vacation notices as described in [I-D.happel-sml-structured-vacation-notices-00] into email messages.¶
As in the case of partial representation, MUAs receiving such messages may take according action based on the structured data extracted.¶
There are existing use cases for cross-referencing between different parts of a MIME message, for which [RFC2392] defines the cid: and mid: URI schemes.¶
In a similar fashion, cross-referencing might occur between structured data and other message parts.¶
Most nodes and properties in JSON-LD are identified using IRIs [RFC3987]. Since any [RFC2392] (cid/mid) reference forms a valid IRI, those references can be directly used in JSON-LD.¶
There are two main cases for which cid:-identifiers SHOULD be used in structured data.¶
First, if structured data references binary content such as images or other files, which already exist as MIME body parts within the same message.¶
Second, if a cid: value is used in a JSON-LD @id property, the corresponding JSON-LD node can be considered to describe the MIME body part identified by that cid:. This MAY be used to denote that certain structured data is explictily describing that MIME body part. This MUST NOT be used for the main text/plain or text/html body parts, though.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/4¶
In the case of "partial representation", a MUA will still primarily display the human readable part of a message (e.g., text/plain or text/html).¶
It might however be helpful if the MUA is able to determine which parts of human readable text refer to certain structured data - e.g., to offer actions based on structured data directly in the context of the corresponding human-readable content.¶
For this purpose, the sender may add a HTML "data-id" property ([HTMLData]) to any HTML entity in the text/html body, which references the @id property of a JSON-LD node in the structured data.¶
Besides referencing the corresponding JSON-LD node, a sender might also want to denote if the underlying data is "extensively" described or just mentioned in the human readable representation. Depending on that, a MUA might provide different additional visualizations for the user.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/5¶
Forwarding messages including structured data needs to be considered from a privacy perspective, particularly in cases of "non-representation", when the user has no way to determine structured data from the human readable part of the message.¶
A MUA MUST strip non-representative structured data when forwarding messages. Note that this does only apply to MUAs directed by users and not for automated forwarding set up by a user.¶
Beyond that, privacy issues also apply to forwarding regular email messages, such that a more general solution might be specified outside of the specific context of structured email.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/6¶
In order to allow responses to structured email messages, the [SchemaOrg] vocabulary specifies a property called "potentialAction" ([PotentialAction]).¶
Accordingly, there can be two different ways of replying to a structured email: regular email replies such as supported by many MUAs, and particular structured email replies.¶
MUAs should ensure that both types of reply can be clearly distinguished by end users.¶
If the "target" property of an action points to a "mailto:" URI, the email user agent SHOULD reply with a structured email if the user triggers the action.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/7¶
In general, an original sender may not assume that a structured email has been processed by a recipient. Hence, there will typically be no response or error message returned, if the receiving MUA cannot make sense of a structured email for whatever reason.¶
This may be slightly different when sending a structured email in response to an initial structured email. In this case, the original sender MAY want to signal an issue with a response received, such as if a contradicting response has already been received, or if a response is formally inconsistent in another way.¶
In this case, a "full representation"-style error message MAY be returnend to the sender of the erroneous response. Example: TBD¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/8¶
In human-readable messages, human language can be used to update or recall information that was conveyed in prior messages. Accordingly, there needs to be a machine-readable mechanism that allows to express the update or recall of information of structured data.¶
Structured data SHOULD be updated, if a later email message with a `SUPERSEDES header field ([RFC4021]; "superseding message") referencing the message id of the original email message is processed. In this case, structured data of the original message should be fully revoked and replaced by the structured data of the superseding message (which might be empty).¶
Structured data in a superseding message MUST be ignored if:¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/9¶
This sections presents header fields and IMAP flags which are supposed to support MUAs in dealing with structured email.¶
In some use cases, MUAs might benefit from information about message details without having to evaluate the full message body.¶
For example, the $hasAttachment IMAP flag ([HasAttachment]) was proposed to signal the existence of MIME attachments in a message which otherwise would need to be redetermined based on complex MIME parsing.¶
The following procedures should apply to structured email.¶
A sending MUA (aMUA) SHOULD add a header field Structured data if a message contains structured data. The value for this field MUST include only one of the following values (case-insensitive):¶
The Structured data fields SHOULD additionally include (case-insensitive, comma-separated) the value Action, if a message contains a "potentialAction" a MUA might want to investigate.¶
Similarly, the IMAP flags $hasStructuredData and $hasStructuredDataAction MAY be used, if an inbound message is found to contain structured data, but neither of the aforementioned header fields.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/10¶
A structured email can contain "potentialActions". MUAs need to ensure that such actions are not triggered multiple times - either within the same MUA or across multiple concurrent MUAs.¶
For this purpose, the \Answered flag ([RFC9051]) is not appropriate, as it has an established meaning and implementations for regular, manually authored responses.¶
Therefore, a MUA MUST set a flag $structuredDataActionSent if a potentialAction has been responsed to - either by the user or some other mechanism on behalf of the user.¶
For discussion, see also: https://github.com/hhappel/draft-happel-structured-email/issues/11¶
Placement of JSON-LD markup in a text/html body part:¶
<html> <body> <script type="ld+json"> ... </script> </body> </html>¶
Email user agents that want to support structured email should follow guidance to ensure trust and security standards. These will be elaborated in a separate specification.¶
< RFC Editor: before publication please remove this section and the reference to [RFC7942] >¶
This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.¶
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".¶
An open source plugin for the Roundcube Webmail software is developed to serve as a reference implementation for this specification ([RC-SML]).¶
Beyond that, some ISPs and open source tools provide implementation partly compliant with this specficiation ([SchemaOrgEmail]).¶
See section "security and trust".¶
See section "security and trust".¶
This document has no IANA actions at this time.¶
(TBD IMAP flags)¶