draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-00.txt   draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01.txt 
REPUTE Working Group N. Borenstein REPUTE Working Group N. Borenstein
Internet-Draft Mimecast Internet-Draft Mimecast
Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy
Expires: May 22, 2012 Cloudmark Expires: June 18, 2012 Cloudmark
November 19, 2011 December 16, 2011
A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Identities A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Identifiers
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-00 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a vocabulary for describing email identities This document defines a vocabulary for describing email identifiers
(typically authors or signers) with the application/reputon media (typically authors or signers) with the application/reputon media
type. type.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
4.1. Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application . . . . . 5 4.1. Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo defines a "vocabulary" for describing reputation of an This memo defines a "vocabulary" for describing reputation of an
email identity. A "vocabulary" in this context is defined in email identifier. A "vocabulary" in this context is defined in
[RFCxxxx] and is used to describe assertions a reputation service [RFCxxxx] and is used to describe assertions a reputation service
provider can make about email identities as well as meta-data that 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. can be included in such a reply beyond the base set specified there.
2. Terminology and Definitions 2. Terminology and Definitions
This section defines terms used in the rest of the document. This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.
2.1. Keywords 2.1. Keywords
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 35
Commonly used definitions describing entities in the email Commonly used definitions describing entities in the email
architecture are defined and discussed in [EMAIL-ARCH]. architecture are defined and discussed in [EMAIL-ARCH].
2.3. Other Definitions 2.3. Other Definitions
Other terms of importance in this memo are defined in RFCxxxx, the Other terms of importance in this memo are defined in RFCxxxx, the
base memo in this document series. base memo in this document series.
3. Discussion 3. Discussion
The expression of reputation about an email identity requires The expression of reputation about an email identifier requires
extensions of the base set defined in [RFCxxxx]. This memo defines extensions of the base set defined in [RFCxxxx]. This memo defines
and registers some common assertions about an entity found in a piece and registers some common assertions about an entity found in a piece
of [MAIL]. of [MAIL].
3.1. Assertions 3.1. Assertions
The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following
assertions: assertions:
PERPETRATES-FRAUD: The subject identity is associated with FRAUD: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
fraudulent email of fraudulent email
SENDS-MALWARE: The subject identity is associated with the sending MALWARE: The subject identifier is associated with the sending or
or relaying of malware via email handling of malware via email
SENDS-SPAM: The subject identity is associated with unwanted bulk SPAM: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
email of unwanted bulk email
SENDS-TO-INVALID-RECIPIENTS: The subject delivery attempts to INVALID-RECIPIENTS: The subject identifier is associated with
nonexistent recipients delivery attempts to nonexistent recipients
For all assertions, the RATING scale is linear: A value of 0.0 means 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 there is no data to support the assertion, a value of 1.0 means all
accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening values accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening values
have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as strong have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as strong
of an assertion as a value of "x/2"). of an assertion as a value of "x/2").
3.2. Vocabulary Extensions 3.2. Vocabulary Extensions
The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following
OPTIONAL extensions to the vocabulary defined in [RFCxxxx]: OPTIONAL extensions to the basic vocabulary defined in [RFCxxxx]:
IDENTITY: A token indicating the source of the identity; that is, IDENTITY: A token indicating the source of the identifier; that is,
where the subject identity was found in the message. This MUST be where the subject identifier was found in the message. This MUST
one of: be one of:
DKIM: The signing domain, i.e. the value of the "d=" tag, found DKIM: The signing domain, i.e. the value of the "d=" tag, found
on a valid [DKIM] signature in the message on a valid [DKIM] signature in the message
IPV4: The IPv4 address of the client IPV4: The IPv4 address of the client
IPV6: The IPv6 address of the client IPV6: The IPv6 address of the client
RFC5321.MAILFROM: The RFC5321.MailFrom value of the envelope of a RFC5321.MAILFROM: The RFC5321.MailFrom value of the envelope of a
message of the message (see [SMTP]) message of the message (see [SMTP])
RFC5322.FROM: The RFC5322.From field of the message (see [MAIL]) RFC5322.FROM: The RFC5322.From field of the message (see [MAIL])
SPF: The identity verified by [SPF]) SPF: The domain name portion of the identifier (RFC5321.MailFrom
or RFC5321.Helo) verified by [SPF])
RATE: A token that recommends an overall message acceptance rate for RATE: A token that recommends an overall message acceptance rate for
the subject domain. This is expected to be a value tailored to the subject domain. This is expected to be a value tailored to
the requesting agent; for example, the reputation service would the requesting agent; for example, the reputation service would
use this to indicate that, based on the data reported by the use this to indicate that, based on the data reported by the
requesting agent, the service recommends a particular message requesting agent, the service recommends a particular message
limit for that agent. The value is an unsigned decimal value. limit for that agent. The value is an unsigned decimal value.
SOURCES: A token relating a count of the number of sources of data SOURCES: A token relating a count of the number of sources of data
that contributed to the reported reputation. This is in contrast that contributed to the reported reputation. This is in contrast
skipping to change at page 5, line 28 skipping to change at page 5, line 28
reputation application "email-id". reputation application "email-id".
4.1. Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application 4.1. Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application
This section registers the "email-id" reputation application, as This section registers the "email-id" reputation application, as
defined in [RFCxxxx+1]. The registration parameters are as folows: defined in [RFCxxxx+1]. The registration parameters are as folows:
o Application name: email-id o Application name: email-id
o Short description: Evaluates DNS domain names found in email o Short description: Evaluates DNS domain names found in email
identities identifiers
o Defining document: [this memo] o Defining document: [this memo]
o Status: current o Status: current
o Application-specific query parameters: o Application-specific query parameters:
subject: (current) identifies the subject of the reputation subject: (current) specifies the subject of the reputation query;
query; in this case, it is the email identity whose reputation in this case, it is the email identifier whose reputation is
is requested requested
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This memo describes security considerations introduced by the This memo describes security considerations introduced by the
reputation application and vocabulary defined here. reputation application and vocabulary defined here.
[TBD] [TBD]
6. Informative References 6. Informative References
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 28
[SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, [SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
October 2008. October 2008.
[SPF] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) [SPF] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1", for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
RFC 4408, April 2006. RFC 4408, April 2006.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following to The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following to
this specification: John Levine, and David F. Skoll. this specification: Scott Kitterman, John Levine, Doug Otis, and
David F. Skoll.
Appendix B. Public Discussion Appendix B. Public Discussion
Public discussion of this suite of memos takes place on the Public discussion of this suite of memos takes place on the
domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Nathaniel Borenstein Nathaniel Borenstein
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
27 lines changed or deleted 29 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/