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

Versions: (draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 7073

REPUTE Working Group                                       N. Borenstein
Internet-Draft                                                  Mimecast
Intended status: Standards Track                            M. Kucherawy
Expires: May 23, 2013                                  November 19, 2012


            A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
                 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06

Abstract

   This document defines a response set for describing assertions a
   reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use
   in generating reputons.

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 May 23, 2013.

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.





Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Email Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.3.  Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  Assertions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.2.  Response Set Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  Query Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.1.  Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application . . . . . 5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix B.  Public Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7































Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a response set for describing reputation of
   an email identifier.  A "response set" in this context is defined in
   [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and is used to describe assertions a reputation
   service provider can make about email identifiers as well as meta-
   data that can be included in such a reply beyond the base set
   specified there.

   An atomic reputation response is called a "reputon", also defined in
   that document.


2.  Terminology and Definitions

   This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.

2.1.  Key Words

   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.  Email Definitions

   Commonly used definitions describing entities in the email
   architecture are defined and discussed in [EMAIL-ARCH].

2.3.  Other Definitions

   Other terms of importance in this document are defined in
   [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], the base document for the reputation services
   work.


3.  Discussion

   The expression of reputation about an email identifier requires
   extensions of the base set defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL].  This
   document defines and registers some common assertions about an entity
   found in a piece of [MAIL].

3.1.  Assertions

   The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following
   assertions:





Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012


   abusive:  The subject identifier is associated with sending or
      handling > email of a personally abusive, threatening, or
      otherwise harassing nature.

   fraud:  The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
      of fraudulent email, such as "phishing" (some good discussion on
      this topic can be found in [IODEF-PHISHING])

   invalid-recipients:  The subject identifier is associated with
      delivery attempts to nonexistent recipients

   malware:  The subject identifier is associated with the sending or
      handling of malware via email

   spam:  The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
      of unwanted bulk email

   For all assertions, the "rating" scale is linear: A value of 0.0
   means there is no data to support the assertion, a value of 1.0 means
   all accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening
   values have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as
   strong of an assertion as a value of "x/2").

3.2.  Response Set Extensions

   The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following
   OPTIONAL extensions to the basic response set defined in
   [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]:

   identity:  A token indicating the source of the identifier; that is,
      where the subject identifier was found in the message.  This MUST
      be one of:

      dkim:  The signing domain, i.e. the value of the "d=" tag, found
         on a valid [DKIM] signature in the message

      ipv4:  The IPv4 address of the client

      ipv6:  The IPv6 address of the client

      rfc5321.helo:  The RFC5321.Helo value used by the (see [SMTP])
         client

      rfc5321.mailfrom:  The RFC5321.MailFrom value of the envelope of
         the message (see [SMTP])






Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012


      rfc5322.from:  The RFC5322.From field of the message (see [MAIL])

      spf:  The domain name portion of the identifier (RFC5321.MailFrom
         or RFC5321.Helo) verified by [SPF])

   sources:  A token relating a count of the number of sources of data
      that contributed to the reported reputation.  This is in contrast
      to the "sample-size" parameter, which indicates the total number
      of reports across all reporting sources.

   A reply that does not contain the "identity" or "sources" extensions
   is making a non-specific statement about how the reputation returned
   was developed.  A client can use or ignore such a reply at its
   discretion.

3.3.  Query Extensions

   A query within this application can include the OPTIONAL query
   parameter "identity" to indicate which specific identity is of
   interest to the query.  Legal values are the same as those listed in
   Section 3.2.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo presents one action for IANA, namely the registration of
   the reputation application "email-id".

4.1.  Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application

   This section registers the "email-id" reputation application, as per
   the IANA Considerations section of [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL].  The
   registration parameters are as folows:

   o  Application name: email-id

   o  Short description: Evaluates DNS domain names or IP addresses
      found in email identifiers

   o  Defining document: [this document]

   o  Status: current

   o  Subject: A string appropriate to the identifier of interest (see
      Section 3.2 of this document)

   o  Application-specific query parameters:




Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012


      identity:  (current) as defined in Section 3.3 of this document

   o  Application-specific assertions:

      abusive:  (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document

      fraud:  (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document

      invalid-recipients:  (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this
         document

      malware:  (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document

      spam:  (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document

   o  Application-specific response set extensions:

      identity:  (current) as defined in Section 3.2 of this document


5.  Security Considerations

   This document is primarily an IANA action and doesn't describe any
   protocols or protocol elements that might introduce new security
   concerns.

   Security considerations relevant to email and email authentication
   can be found in most of the documents listed in the References
   sections below.  Information specific to use of reputation services
   can be found in [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS].


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

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

   [EMAIL-ARCH]
              Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
              July 2009.

   [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]
              Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
              Reputation Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-media-type
              (work in progress), November 2012.



Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012


   [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]
              Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation
              Reporting", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress),
              November 2012.

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

   [SPF]      Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
              for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
              RFC 4408, April 2006.

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]
              Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding
              Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations
              (work in progress), November 2012.

   [IODEF-PHISHING]
              Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document
              Class for Reporting Phishing", RFC 5901, July 2010.

   [MAIL]     Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
              October 2008.

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


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following to
   this specification: Scott Hollenbeck, Scott Kitterman, Peter Koch,
   John Levine, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, Doug Otis, and David F.
   Skoll.


Appendix B.  Public Discussion

   Public discussion of this suite of memos takes place on the
   domainrep@ietf.org mailing list.  See
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep.







Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Nathaniel Borenstein
   Mimecast
   203 Crescent St., Suite 303
   Waltham, MA  02453
   USA

   Phone: +1 781 996 5340
   Email: nsb@guppylake.com


   Murray S. Kucherawy
   2063 42nd Avenue
   San Francisco, CA  94116
   USA

   Email: superuser@gmail.com

































Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/