draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08.txt   draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-09.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 8, 2013 June 6, 2013 Expires: March 2, 2014 August 29, 2013
A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-09
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 8, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Positive vs. Negative Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix C. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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-
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.
skipping to change at page 5, line 35 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
Section 3.2. 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-MEDIA-TYPE]. 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 or IP addresses o Short description: Evaluates DNS domain names or IP addresses
found in email identifiers found in email identifiers
o Defining document: [this document] o Defining document: [this document]
o Status: current o Status: current
skipping to change at page 7, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 14
[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
Reporting", 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.
[SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
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.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS] [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]
Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding
Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations
(work in progress), November 2012. (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, Appendix A. Positive vs. Negative Assertions
October 2008.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS] some current theories about reputation,
namely that it is possibly more impactful to develop positive
reputations and focus on giving preferential treatment to content or
sources that earn those. However, the assertions defined in this
document are all clearly negative in nature.
In effect, this document is recording current use of reputation and
of this framework in particular. It is expected that, in the future,
the application being registered here will be augmented, and other
applications registered, that focus more on positive assertions
rather than negative ones.
Appendix B. 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 Hollenbeck, Scott Kitterman, Peter Koch, this specification: Scott Hollenbeck, Scott Kitterman, Peter Koch,
John Levine, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, Doug Otis, and David F. John Levine, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, Doug Otis, and David F.
Skoll. Skoll.
Appendix B. Public Discussion Appendix C. 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
Mimecast Mimecast
203 Crescent St., Suite 303 203 Crescent St., Suite 303
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 26 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/