draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01.txt   draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02.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: June 18, 2012 Cloudmark Expires: July 16, 2012 Cloudmark
December 16, 2011 January 13, 2012
A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Identifiers A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Identifiers
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-01 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a vocabulary for describing email identifiers This document defines a vocabulary for describing assertions a
(typically authors or signers) with the application/reputon media reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use
type. with the application/reputon media 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 June 18, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Email Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Email Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Vocabulary Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Vocabulary Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo defines a "vocabulary" for describing reputation of an This memo specifies a vocabulary for describing reputation of an
email identifier. 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 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and is used to describe assertions a reputation
provider can make about email identifiers as well as meta-data that service provider can make about email identifiers as well as meta-
can be included in such a reply beyond the base set specified there. data that 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
document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
2.2. Email Definitions 2.2. Email Definitions
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
base memo in this document series. [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], the base memo in this document series.
3. Discussion 3. Discussion
The expression of reputation about an email identifier 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 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. This memo
and registers some common assertions about an entity found in a piece defines and registers some common assertions about an entity found in
of [MAIL]. a piece 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:
FRAUD: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling FRAUD: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
of fraudulent email of fraudulent email, such as "phishing" (some good discussion on
this topic can be found in [IODEF-PHISHING])
MALWARE: The subject identifier is associated with the sending or MALWARE: The subject identifier is associated with the sending or
handling of malware via email handling of malware via email
SPAM: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling SPAM: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
of unwanted bulk email of unwanted bulk email
INVALID-RECIPIENTS: The subject identifier is associated with INVALID-RECIPIENTS: The subject identifier is associated with
delivery attempts to 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 basic vocabulary defined in [RFCxxxx]: OPTIONAL extensions to the basic vocabulary defined in
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]:
IDENTITY: A token indicating the source of the identifier; that is, IDENTITY: A token indicating the source of the identifier; that is,
where the subject identifier was found in the message. This MUST where the subject identifier was found in the message. This MUST
be 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 17
to the SAMPLE-SIZE parameter, which indicates the total number of to the SAMPLE-SIZE parameter, which indicates the total number of
reports across all reporting sources. reports across all reporting sources.
A reply that does not contain the IDENTITY or SOURCES extensions is A reply that does not contain the IDENTITY or SOURCES extensions is
making a non-specific statement about how the reputation returned was making a non-specific statement about how the reputation returned was
developed. A client may use or ignore such a reply at its developed. A client may use or ignore such a reply at its
discretion. discretion.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This memo presents one action for IANA, namely the registraton of the This memo presents one action for IANA, namely the registration of
reputation application "email-id". the 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 per
defined in [RFCxxxx+1]. The registration parameters are as folows: the IANA Considerations section of [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. 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
identifiers identifiers
o Defining document: [this memo] o Defining document: [this memo]
o Status: current o Status: current
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
in this case, it is the email identifier whose reputation is in this case, it is the email identifier whose reputation 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. References
6.1. Normative References
[DKIM] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed., [DKIM] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376,
September 2011. September 2011.
[EMAIL-ARCH] [EMAIL-ARCH]
Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
July 2009. July 2009.
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]
Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation
Interchange", I-D draft-ietf-repute-model, November 2011.
[KEYWORDS] [KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 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
[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, [MAIL] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008. October 2008.
[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)
for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
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: Scott Kitterman, John Levine, Doug Otis, and this specification: Scott Kitterman, John Levine, S. Moonesamy, Doug
David F. Skoll. 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. 20 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 49 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/