draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02.txt   draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-03.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: July 16, 2012 Cloudmark Expires: October 8, 2012 Cloudmark
January 13, 2012 April 6, 2012
A Reputation Vocabulary for Email Identifiers A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-02 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-03
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a vocabulary for describing assertions a This document defines a response set for describing assertions a
reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use
with the application/reputon media type. in generating reputons.
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 July 16, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. Response Set Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Query Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo specifies a vocabulary for describing reputation of an This document specifies a response set for describing reputation of
email identifier. A "vocabulary" in this context is defined in an email identifier. A "response set" in this context is defined in
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and is used to describe assertions a reputation [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and is used to describe assertions a reputation
service provider can make about email identifiers as well as meta- service provider can make about email identifiers as well as meta-
data that can be included in such a reply beyond the base set data that can be included in such a reply beyond the base set
specified there. specified there.
An atomic reputation response is called a "reputon", also defined in
that document.
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. Key Words
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 Other terms of importance in this document are defined in
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], the base memo in this document series. [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], the base document for the reputation services
work.
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 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. This memo extensions of the base set defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. This
defines and registers some common assertions about an entity found in document defines and registers some common assertions about an entity
a piece of [MAIL]. found in 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, such as "phishing" (some good discussion on of fraudulent email, such as "phishing" (some good discussion on
this topic can be found in [IODEF-PHISHING]) this topic can be found in [IODEF-PHISHING])
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 24
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. Response Set 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 OPTIONAL extensions to the basic response set defined in
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]: [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
IPV6: The IPv6 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 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 domain name portion of the identifier (RFC5321.MailFrom SPF: The domain name portion of the identifier (RFC5321.MailFrom
or RFC5321.Helo) verified by [SPF]) or RFC5321.Helo) verified by [SPF])
RATE: A token that recommends an overall message acceptance rate for
the subject domain. This is expected to be a value tailored to
the requesting agent; for example, the reputation service would
use this to indicate that, based on the data reported by the
requesting agent, the service recommends a particular message
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
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 can use or ignore such a reply at its
discretion. 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 4. IANA Considerations
This memo presents one action for IANA, namely the registration of This memo presents one action for IANA, namely the registration of
the 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 per This section registers the "email-id" reputation application, as per
the IANA Considerations section of [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. The the IANA Considerations section of [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. The
registration parameters are as folows: 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 document]
o Status: current 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: o Application-specific query parameters:
subject: (current) specifies the subject of the reputation query; identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.3 of this document
in this case, it is the email identifier whose reputation is
requested o Application-specific extensions:
identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.2 of this document
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This memo describes security considerations introduced by the This section describes security considerations introduced by the
reputation application and vocabulary defined here. reputation application and response set extensions defined here.
[TBD] [TBD]
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative 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.
skipping to change at page 6, line 16 skipping to change at page 6, line 28
[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] [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]
Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation
Interchange", I-D draft-ietf-repute-model, November 2011. Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress),
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) [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.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 52 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/