draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05.txt   draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06.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 17, 2013 November 13, 2012 Expires: May 23, 2013 November 19, 2012
A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06
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 May 17, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 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 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
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 extensions of the base set defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. This
document defines and registers some common assertions about an entity document defines and registers some common assertions about an entity
found in 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 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 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 invalid-recipients: The subject identifier is associated with
delivery attempts to nonexistent recipients 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
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
there is no data to support the assertion, a value of 1.0 means all means there is no data to support the assertion, a value of 1.0 means
accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening values all accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening
have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as strong values have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as
of an assertion as a value of "x/2"). strong 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
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]: [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]:
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]) rfc5321.helo: The RFC5321.Helo value used by the (see [SMTP])
client client
RFC5321.MAILFROM: The RFC5321.MailFrom value of the envelope of a rfc5321.mailfrom: The RFC5321.MailFrom value of the envelope of
message of the message (see [SMTP]) 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])
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
reports across all reporting sources. of 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
making a non-specific statement about how the reputation returned was is making a non-specific statement about how the reputation returned
developed. A client can use or ignore such a reply at its was developed. A client can use or ignore such a reply at its
discretion. discretion.
3.3. Query Extensions 3.3. Query Extensions
A query within this application can include the OPTIONAL query A query within this application can include the OPTIONAL query
parameter "identity" to indicate which specific identity is of parameter "identity" to indicate which specific identity is of
interest to the query. Legal values are the same as those listed in interest to the query. Legal values are the same as those listed in
Section 3.2. Section 3.2.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 5, line 35 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
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 or IP addresses
identifiers found in email identifiers
o Defining document: [this document] o Defining document: [this document]
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: 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 fraud: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document
invalid-recipients: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this invalid-recipients: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this
document document
malware: (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 spam: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document
o Application-specific response set extensions: o Application-specific response set extensions:
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 47
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-MEDIA-TYPE]
Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
Reputation Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-media-type
(work in progress), November 2012.
[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), Reporting", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress),
November 2012. 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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 27 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
[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.
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, S. Moonesamy, Doug this specification: Scott Hollenbeck, Scott Kitterman, Peter Koch,
Otis, and David F. Skoll. John Levine, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, 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. 25 change blocks. 
33 lines changed or deleted 45 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/