[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RFC 6651

MARF Working Group                                          M. Kucherawy
Internet-Draft                                                 Cloudmark
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 12, 2012
Expires: September 13, 2012


                Extensions to DKIM for Failure Reporting
                   draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting-13

Abstract

   This memo presents extensions to the DomainKeys Identified Mail
   (DKIM) specification to allow for detailed reporting of message
   authentication failures in an on-demand fashion.

Status of this Memo

   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 http://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 September 13, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://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 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.





Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Imported Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.4.  Other Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Optional Reporting for DKIM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Extension DKIM Signature Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  DKIM Reporting TXT Record  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  DKIM Reporting Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Optional Reporting Address for DKIM-ADSP . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Requested Reports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Requested Reports for DKIM Failures  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  Requested Reports for DKIM ADSP Failures . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Report Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Report Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.  Other Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.1.  DKIM Signature Tag Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.2.  DKIM ADSP Tag Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.3.  DKIM Reporting Tag Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.1.  Inherited Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.2.  Report Volume  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.3.  Deliberate Misuse  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     8.4.  Unreported Fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Appendix B.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     B.1.  Example Use of DKIM Signature Extension Tag  . . . . . . . 21
     B.2.  Example DKIM Reporting TXT Record  . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     B.3.  Example Use of DKIM ADSP Extension Tags  . . . . . . . . . 22
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23














Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


1.  Introduction

   [DKIM] introduced a mechanism for message signing and authentication.
   It uses digital signing to associate a domain name with a message in
   a reliable (i.e. not easily forged) manner.  The output is a verified
   domain name that can then be subjected to some sort of evaluation
   process (e.g., advertised sender policy, comparison to a known-good
   list, submission to a reputation service, etc.).

   Deployers of message authentication technologies are increasingly
   seeking visibility into DKIM verification failures and conformance
   failures involving the published signing practices (e.g., Author
   Domain Signing Practices, [ADSP]) of an Administrative Management
   Domain (ADMD; see [EMAIL-ARCH]).

   This document extends [DKIM] and [ADSP] to add an optional reporting
   address and some reporting parameters.  Reports are generated using
   the format defined in [I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT].

































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


2.  Definitions

2.1.  Keywords

   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 [KEYWORDS].

2.2.  Imported Definitions

   The ABNF token "qp-section" is imported from [MIME].

   Numerous DKIM-specific terms used here are defined in [DKIM].  The
   definition of the ABNF token "domain-name" can also be found there.

2.3.  Notation

   Certain properties of email messages described in this document are
   referenced using notation found in [EMAIL-ARCH] (e.g.,
   "RFC5322.From").

2.4.  Other Definitions

   report generator:  A report generator is an entitiy that generates
      and sends reports.  For the scope of this memo, the term refers to
      Verifiers, as defined in Section 2.2 of [DKIM], designed also to
      generate authentication failure reports according to this
      specification.























Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


3.  Optional Reporting for DKIM

   A domain name owner employing [DKIM] for email signing and
   authentication might want to know when signatures that ought to be
   verifiable with specific public keys are not successfully verifying.
   Currently there is no such mechanism defined.

   This document adds optional "tags" (as defined in [DKIM]) to the
   DKIM-Signature header field and the DKIM key record in the DNS, using
   the formats defined in that specification.

3.1.  Extension DKIM Signature Tag

   The following tag is added to DKIM-Signature header fields when a
   Signer wishes to request that reports of failed verifications be
   generated by a Verifier:

   r= Reporting Requested (plain-text; OPTIONAL; no default).  If
      present, this tag indicates that the Signer requests that
      Verifiers generate a report when verification of the DKIM
      signature fails.  At present, the only legal value is the single
      character "y" (in either upper or lower case).  A complete
      description and illustration of how this is applied can be found
      in Section 3.3.

   ABNF:

       sig-r-tag = %x72 *WSP "=" *WSP "y"

3.2.  DKIM Reporting TXT Record

   When a Signer wishes to advertise that it wants to receive failed
   verification reports, it places in the DNS a TXT resource record
   (RR).  The RR is made up of a sequence of tag-value objects (much
   like DKIM key records, as defined in Section 3.6.1 of [DKIM]), but it
   is entirely independent of those key records and is found at a
   different name.  In the case of a record advertising the desire for
   authentication failure reports, the tags and values comprise the
   parameters to be used when generating the reports.  A report
   generator will request the content of this record when it sees an
   "r=" tag in a DKIM-Signature header field.

   Section 3.6.2.2 of [DKIM] provides guidance with respect to handling
   of a TXT RR that comprises multiple distinct strings ("character-
   strings" in the parlance of [DNS]).  The same process MUST be applied
   here.

   Any tag found in the content of this record that is not registered



Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


   with IANA as described in Section 7.3 SHOULD be ignored, unless it is
   being used as an experimental extension to this specification.

   The initial list of tags supported for the reporting TXT record is as
   follows:

   ra=  Reporting Address (plain-text; OPTIONAL).  A dkim-quoted-
      printable string (see Section 2.11 of [DKIM]) containing the
      local-part of an email address to which a report SHOULD be sent
      when mail fails DKIM verification for one of the reasons
      enumerated below.  The value MUST be interpreted as a local-part
      only.  To construct the actual address to which the report is
      sent, the Verifier simply appends to this value an "@" followed by
      the domain name found in the "d=" tag of the DKIM-Signature header
      field.  Therefore, an ADMD making use of this specification MUST
      ensure that an email address thus constructed can receive reports
      generated as described in Section 6.  ABNF:

       rep-ra-tag = %x72.61 *WSP "=" *WSP qp-section

   rp=  Requested Report Percentage (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is
      "100").  The value is an integer from 0 to 100 inclusive that
      indicates what percentage of incidents of signature authentication
      failures, selected at random, are to cause reports to be
      generated.  The report generator SHOULD NOT issue reports for more
      than the requested percentage of incidents.  Report generators MAY
      make use of the "Incidents:" field in [ARF] to indicate that there
      are more reportable incidents than there are reports.  ABNF:

       rep-rp-tag = %x72.70 *WSP "=" *WSP 1*3DIGIT

   rr=  Requested Reports (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is "all").  The
      value MUST be a colon-separated list of tokens representing those
      conditions under which a report is desired.  See Section 5.1 for a
      list of valid tags.  ABNF:

       rep-rr-type = ( "all" / "d" / "o" / "p"/ "s" / "u" / "v" / "x" )
       rep-rr-tag = %x72.72 *WSP "=" *WSP rep-rr-type
                    *WSP 0* ( ":" *WSP rep-rr-type )

   rs=  Requested SMTP Error String (text; OPTIONAL; no default).  The
      value is a dkim-quoted-printable string that the publishing ADMD
      requests be included in [SMTP] error strings if messages are
      rejected during the delivery SMTP session.  ABNF:

       rep-rs-tag = %x72.73 *WSP "=" qp-section

   In the absence of an "ra=" tag, the "rp=" and "rr=" tags MUST be



Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


   ignored, and the report generator MUST NOT issue a report.

3.3.  DKIM Reporting Algorithm

   Report generators MUST apply the following algorithm, or one
   semantically equivalent to it, for each DKIM-Signature header field
   whose verification fails for some reason.  Note that this processing
   is done as a reporting extension only; the outcome of the specified
   DKIM evaluation MUST be otherwise unaffected.

   1.   If the DKIM-Signature field did not contain a valid "r=" tag,
        terminate.

   2.   Issue a [DNS] TXT query to the name that results from appending
        the value of the "d=" tag in the DKIM-Signature field to the
        string "_report._domainkey.".  For example, if the DKIM-
        Signature header field contains "d=example.com", issue a DNS TXT
        query to "_report._domainkey.example.com".

   3.   If the DNS query returns anything other than RCODE 0 (NOERROR),
        or if multiple TXT records are returned, terminate.

   4.   If the resultant TXT is in several string fragments, concatenate
        them as described in Section 3.6.2.2 of [DKIM].

   5.   If the TXT content is syntactically invalid, terminate.

   6.   If the reason for the signature evaluation failure does not
        match one of the report requests found in the "rr=" tag (or its
        default value), terminate.

   7.   If a report percentage ("rp=") tag was present, select a random
        number between 0 and 99, inclusive; if the selected number is
        not lower than the tag's value, terminate.

   8.   If no "ra=" tag was present, skip this step and the next one.
        Otherwise, determine the reporting address by extracting the
        value of the "ra=" tag and appending to it "@" followed by the
        domain name found in the "d=" tag of the DKIM-Signature header
        field.

   9.   Construct and send a report in compliance with Section 6 of this
        memo that includes as its intended recipient the address
        constructed in the previous step.

   10.  If the [SMTP] session during which the DKIM signautre was
        evaluated is still active and the SMTP server has not already
        given its response to the DATA command that relayed the message,



Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


        and an "rs=" tag was present in the TXT record, the SMTP server
        SHOULD include the decoded string found in the "rs=" tag in its
        SMTP reply to the DATA command.

   In order to thwart attacks that seek to convert report generators
   into unwitting denial-of-service attack participants, a report
   generator SHOULD NOT issue more than one report to any given domain
   as a result of a single message.  Further, a report generator SHOULD
   establish an upper bound on the number of reports a single message
   can generate overall.  For example, a message with three invalid
   signatures, two from example.com and one from example.net, would
   generate at most one report to each of those domains.

   This algorithm has the following advantages over previous pre-
   standardization implementations, such as early versions of
   [OPENDKIM]:

   a.  If the DKIM signature fails to verify, no additional DNS check is
       made to see if reporting is requested; the request is active in
       that it is included in the DKIM-Signature header field.
       (Previous implementations included the reporting address in the
       DKIM key record, which is not queried for certain failure cases.
       This meant, for full reporting, that the key record had to be
       retrieved even when it was not otherwise necessary.)

   b.  The request is confirmed by the presence of a corresponding TXT
       record in the DNS, since the Signer thus provides the parameters
       required to construct and send the report.  This means a
       malicious Signer cannot falsely assert that someone else wants
       failure reports and cause unwanted mail to be generated.  It can
       cause additional DNS traffic against the domain listed in the
       "d=" signature tag, but negative caching of the requested DNS
       record will help to mitigate this issue.

   c.  It is not possible for a Signer to direct reports to an email
       address outside of its own domain, preventing distributed email-
       based denial-of-service attacks.

   See Section 8.4 for some considerations regardin limitations of this
   mechanism.











Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


4.  Optional Reporting Address for DKIM-ADSP

   There also exist cases in which a domain name owner employing [ADSP]
   for announcing signing practises with DKIM may want to know when
   messages are received without valid author domain signatures.
   Currently there is no such mechanism defined.

   This document adds the following optional "tags" (as defined in
   [ADSP]) to the DKIM ADSP records, using the form defined in that
   specification:

   ra=  Reporting Address (plain-text; OPTIONAL; no default).  The value
      MUST be a dkim-quoted-printable string containing the local-part
      of an email address to which a report SHOULD be sent when mail
      claiming to be from this domain failed the verification algorithm
      described in [ADSP], in particular because a message arrived
      without a signature that validates, which contradicts what the
      ADSP record claims.  The value MUST be interpreted as a local-part
      only.  To construct the actual address to which the report is
      sent, the Verifier simply appends to this value an "@" followed by
      the domain whose policy was queried in order to evaluate the
      sender's ADSP, i.e., the RFC5322.From domain of the message under
      evaluation.  Therefore, a signer making use of this extension tag
      MUST ensure that an email address thus constructed can receive
      reports generated as described in Section 6.  ABNF:

       adsp-ra-tag = %x72.61 *WSP "=" qp-section

   rp=  Requested Report Percentage (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is
      "100").  The value is a single integer from 0 to 100 inclusive
      that indicates what percentage of incidents of ADSP evaluation
      failures, selected at random, should cause reports to be
      generated.  The report generator SHOULD NOT issue reports for more
      than the requested percentage of incidents.  An exception to this
      might be some out-of-band arrangement between two parties to
      override it with some mutually agreed value.  Report generators
      MAY make use of the "Incidents:" field in [ARF] to indicate that
      there are more reportable incidents than there are reports.  ABNF:

       adsp-rp-tag = %x72.70 *WSP "=" *WSP 1*3DIGIT

   rr=  Requested Reports (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is "all").  The
      value MUST be a colon-separated list of tokens representing those
      conditions under which a report is desired.  See Section 5.2 for a
      list of valid tags.  ABNF:

       adsp-rr-type = ( "all" / "o" / "p" / "s" / "u" )
       adsp-rr-tag = %x72.72 *WSP "=" *WSP adsp-rr-type



Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


                     *WSP 0* ( ":" *WSP adsp-rr-type )

   rs=  Requested SMTP Error String (plain-text; OPTIONAL; no default).
      The value is a string the signing domain requests be included in
      [SMTP] error strings when messages are rejected during a single
      SMTP session.  ABNF:

       adsp-rs-tag = %x72.73 *WSP "=" qp-section

   In the absence of an "ra=" tag, the "rp=" and "rr=" tags MUST be
   ignored, and the report generator MUST NOT issue a report.








































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


5.  Requested Reports

   This memo also includes, as the "rr" tags defined above, the means by
   which the signer can request reports for specific circumstances of
   interest.  Verifiers MUST NOT generate reports for incidents that do
   not match a requested report, and MUST ignore requests for reports
   not included in this list.

5.1.  Requested Reports for DKIM Failures

   The following report requests are defined for DKIM keys:

   all  All reports are requested.

   d  Reports are requested for signature evaluation errors that
      resulted from DNS issues (e.g., key retrieval problems).

   o  Reports are requested for any reason related to DKIM signature
      evaluation not covered by other report requests listed here.

   p  Reports are requested for signatures that are rejected for local
      policy reasons at the Verifier that are related to DKIM signature
      evaluation.

   s  Reports are requested for signature or key syntax errors.

   u  Reports are requested for signatures that include unknown tags in
      the signature field.

   v  Reports are requested for signature verification failures or body
      hash mismatches.

   x  Reports are requested for signatures rejected by the Verifier
      because the expiration time has passed.

5.2.  Requested Reports for DKIM ADSP Failures

   The following report requests are defined for ADSP records:

   all  All reports are requested.

   o  Reports are requested for any [ADSP]-related failure reason not
      covered by other report requests listed here.

   p  Reports are requested for messages that are rejected for local
      policy reasons at the Verifier that are related to [ADSP].





Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


   s  Reports are requested for messages that have a valid [DKIM]
      signature but do not match the published [ADSP] policy.

   u  Reports are requested for messages that have no valid [DKIM]
      signature and do not match the published [ADSP] policy.














































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


6.  Report Generation

   This section describes the process for generating and sending reports
   in accordance with the request of the signer and/or sender as
   described above.

6.1.  Report Format

   All reports generated as a result of requests contained in these
   extension parameters MUST be generated in compliance with [ARF] and
   its extension specific to this work,
   [I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT].

6.2.  Other Guidance

   Additional guidance about the generation of these reports can be
   found in [I-D.IETF-MARF-AS], especially Section 9.


































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


7.  IANA Considerations

   As required by [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS], this section contains registry
   information for the new [DKIM] signature tags, and the new [ADSP]
   tags.  It also creates a DKIM reporting tag registry.

7.1.  DKIM Signature Tag Registration

   IANA is requested to update the DKIM Signature Tag Specification
   Registry to include the following new items:

                 +------+-----------------+--------+
                 | TYPE | REFERENCE       | STATUS |
                 +------+-----------------+--------+
                 | r    | (this document) | active |
                 +------+-----------------+--------+

7.2.  DKIM ADSP Tag Registration

   IANA is requested to update the DKIM ADSP Specification Tag Registry
   to include the following new items:

                 +------+-----------------+
                 | TYPE | REFERENCE       |
                 +------+-----------------+
                 | ra   | (this document) |
                 | rp   | (this document) |
                 | rr   | (this document) |
                 | rs   | (this document) |
                 +------+-----------------+

7.3.  DKIM Reporting Tag Registry

   IANA is requested to create a sub-registry of the DKIM Parameters
   registry called "DKIM Reporting Tags".  Additions to this registry
   follow the "Specification Required" rules, with the following columns
   required for all registrations:

   Type:  The name of the tag being used in reporting records

   Reference:  The document that specifies the tag being defined

   Status:  The status of the tag's current use, either "active"
      indicating active use, or "historic" indicating discontinued or
      deprecated use

   The initial registry entries are as follows:




Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


                 +------+-----------------+--------+
                 | TYPE | REFERENCE       | STATUS |
                 +------+-----------------+--------+
                 | ra   | (this document) | active |
                 | rp   | (this document) | active |
                 | rr   | (this document) | active |
                 | rs   | (this document) | active |
                 +------+-----------------+--------+











































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


8.  Security Considerations

   Security issues with respect to these reports are similar to those
   found in [DSN].

8.1.  Inherited Considerations

   Implementers are advised to consider the Security Considerations
   sections of [DKIM], [ADSP], [I-D.IETF-MARF-AS], and
   [I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT].  Many security issues related to
   this draft are already covered in those documents.

8.2.  Report Volume

   It is impossible to predict the volume of reports this facility will
   generate when enabled by a report receiver.  An implementer ought to
   anticipate substantial volume, since the amount of abuse occurring at
   receivers cannot be known ahead of time, and may vary rapidly and
   unpredictably.

8.3.  Deliberate Misuse

   Some threats caused by deliberate misuse of this mechanism are
   discussed in Section 3.3, but they warrant further discussion here.

   Negative caching offers some protection against this pattern of
   abuse, although it will work only as long as the negative time-to-
   live on the relevant SOA record in the DNS.

   The presence of the DNS record that indicates willingness to accept
   reports opens the recipient to abuse.  In particular, it is possible
   for an attacker to attempt to cause a flood of reports toward the
   domain identified in a signature's "d=" tag in one of these ways:

   1.  Alter existing DKIM-Signature header fields by adding an "r=y"
       tag (and possibly altering the "d=" tag to point at the target
       domain);

   2.  Add a new but bogus signature bearing an "r=y" tag and a "d=" tag
       pointing at the target domain;

   3.  Generate a completely new message bearing an "r=y" tag and a "d="
       tag pointing at the target domain.

   Consider, for example, the situation where an an attacker sends out a
   multi-million-message spam run, and includes in the messages a fake
   DKIM signature containing "d=example.com; r=y".  It won't matter that
   those signatures couldn't possibly be real: each will fail



Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


   verification, and any implementations that support this specification
   will report those failures, in the millions and in short order, to
   example.com.

   Implementers are therefore strongly advised not to advertise that DNS
   record except when reports desired, including the risk of receiving
   this kind of attack.

   Positive caching of this DNS reply also means turning off the flow of
   reports by removing the record is not likely to have immediate
   effect.  A low time-to-live on the record needs to be considered.

8.4.  Unreported Fraud

   An attacker can craft fraudulent DKIM-Signature fields on messages,
   without using "r=" tags, and avoid having these reported.  The
   procedure described in Section 3.3 does not permit the detection and
   reporting of such cases.

   It might be useful to some Signers to receive such reports, but the
   mechanism does not support it.  To offer such support, a Verifier
   would have to violate the first step in the procedure and continue
   even in the absence of an "r=" tag.  Although that would enable the
   desired report, it would also create a possible denial-of-service
   attack: such Verifiers would always look for the reporting TXT
   record, so a generator of fraudulent messages could simply send a
   large volume of messages without an "r=" tag to a number of
   destinations.  To avoid that outcome, reports of fraudulent DKIM-
   Signature header fields are not possible using the published
   mechanism.





















Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [ADSP]     Allman, E., Delany, M., Fenton, J., and J. Levine,
              "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Author Domain Signing
              Practices (ADSP)", RFC 5617, August 2009.

   [ARF]      Shafranovich, Y., Levine, J., and M. Kucherawy, "An
              Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports", RFC 5965,
              August 2010.

   [DKIM]     Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
              "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376,
              September 2011.

   [DNS]      Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [EMAIL-ARCH]
              Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
              October 2008.

   [I-D.IETF-MARF-AS]
              Falk, J. and M. Kucherawy, Ed., "Creation and Use of Email
              Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement for the Abuse
              Reporting Format (ARF)", draft-ietf-marf-as (work in
              progress), January 2012.

   [I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT]
              Fontana, H., "Authentication Failure Reporting using the
              Abuse Report Format", draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report
              (work in progress), January 2012.

   [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]
              Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008.

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

   [MIME]     Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [SMTP]     Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              October 2008.



Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


9.2.  Informative References

   [DSN]      Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
              for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
              January 2003.

   [OPENDKIM]
              Kucherawy, M., "OpenDKIM -- Open Source DKIM Library and
              Filter", August 2009, <http://www.opendkim.org>.










































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to acknowledge the following for their review and
   constructive criticism of this proposal: Steve Atkins, Monica Chew,
   Dave Crocker, Tim Draegen, Frank Ellermann, JD Falk, John Levine,
   Scott Kitterman, and Andrew Sullivan.













































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


Appendix B.  Examples

   This section contains examples of the use of each of the extensions
   defined by this memo.

B.1.  Example Use of DKIM Signature Extension Tag

   A DKIM-Signature field including use of the extension tag defined by
   this memo:

       DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;
               d=example.com; s=jan2012; r=y;
               h=from:to:subject:date:message-id;
               bh=YJAYwiNdc3wMh6TD8FjVhtmxaHYHo7Z/06kHQYvQ4tQ=;
               b=jHF3tpgqr6nH/icHKIqFK2IJPtCLF0CRJaz2Hj1Y8yNwTJ
                 IMYIZtLccho3ymGF2GYqvTl2nP/cn4dH+55rH5pqkWNnuJ
                 R9z54CFcanoKKcl9wOZzK9i5KxM0DTzfs0r8

   Example 1: DKIM-Signature field using this extension

   This example DKIM-Signature field contains the "r=" tag that
   indicates reports are requested on verification failure.

   Assuming the public key retrieved from the DNS and processed
   according to [DKIM] would determine that the signature is invalid, a
   TXT query will be sent to "_report._domainkey.example.com" to
   retrieve a reporting address and other report parameters as described
   in Section 3.3.

B.2.  Example DKIM Reporting TXT Record

   An example DKIM Reporting TXT Record as defined by this memo:

       ra=dkim-errors; rp=100; rr=v:x

   Example 2: Example DKIM Reporting TXT Record

   This example, continuing from the previous one, shows a message that
   might be found at "_report._domainkey.example.com" in a TXT record.
   It makes the following requests:

   o  Reports about signature evaluation failures should be send to the
      address "dkim-errors" at the signer's domain;

   o  All (100%) incidents should be reported;

   o  Only reports about signature verification failures and expired
      signatures should be generated.



Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


B.3.  Example Use of DKIM ADSP Extension Tags

   A DKIM ADSP record including use of the extensions defined by this
   memo:

       dkim=all; ra=dkim-adsp-errors; rr=u

   Example 3: DKIM ADSP record using these extensions

   This example ADSP record makes the following assertions:

   o  The sending domain (i.e. the one that is advertising this policy)
      signs all mail it sends;

   o  Reports about ADSP evaluation failures should be send to the
      address "dkim-adsp-errors" at the Author's domain;

   o  Only reports about unsigned messages should be generated.

































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          DKIM Reporting Extensions             March 2012


Author's Address

   Murray S. Kucherawy
   Cloudmark
   128 King St., 2nd Floor
   San Francisco, CA  94107
   US

   Phone: +1 415 946 3800
   Email: msk@cloudmark.com









































Kucherawy              Expires September 13, 2012              [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/