draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04.txt   draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05.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: December 30, 2012 June 28, 2012 Expires: May 17, 2013 November 13, 2012
A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a response set 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
in generating reputons. 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
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 December 30, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2013.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
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. Response Set Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Response Set Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Query Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies a response set for describing reputation of This document specifies a response set for describing reputation of
an email identifier. A "response set" 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-
skipping to change at page 4, line 9 skipping to change at page 4, line 9
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])
INVALID-RECIPIENTS: The subject identifier is associated with
delivery attempts to nonexistent recipients
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
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. Response Set 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 response set defined in OPTIONAL extensions to the basic response set defined in
skipping to change at page 5, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 49
o Status: current o Status: current
o Subject: A string appropriate to the identifier of interest (see o Subject: A string appropriate to the identifier of interest (see
Section 3.2 of this document) Section 3.2 of this document)
o Application-specific query parameters: o Application-specific query parameters:
identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.3 of this document identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.3 of this document
o Application-specific assertions: none o Application-specific assertions:
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: o Application-specific response set extensions:
identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.2 of this document identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.2 of this document
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This section describes security considerations introduced by the This document is primarily an IANA action and doesn't describe any
reputation application and response set extensions defined here. protocols or protocol elements that might introduce new security
concerns.
[TBD] 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. 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.
[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", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress), Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress),
November 2011. November 2012.
[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
[I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]
Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding
Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations
(work in progress), November 2012.
[IODEF-PHISHING] [IODEF-PHISHING]
Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document
Class for Reporting Phishing", RFC 5901, July 2010. 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.
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 31 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/