draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13.txt   rfc7071.txt 
REPUTE Working Group N. Borenstein Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Borenstein
Internet-Draft Mimecast Request for Comments: 7071 Mimecast
Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy Category: Standards Track M. Kucherawy
Expires: March 19, 2014 September 15, 2013 ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2013
A Media Type for Reputation Interchange A Media Type for Reputation Interchange
draft-ietf-repute-media-type-13
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the format of reputation response data This document defines the format of reputation response data
("reputons"), the media-type for packaging it, and definition of a ("reputons"), the media type for packaging it, and definition of a
registry for the names of reputation applications and response sets. registry for the names of reputation applications and response sets.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2014. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7071.
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
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 ....................................................2
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Definitions .....................................3
2.1. Reputon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Reputon ....................................................3
2.2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Key Words ..................................................3
2.3. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Other Definitions ..........................................3
3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Description .....................................................3
3.1. Reputon Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Reputon Attributes .........................................4
4. Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Ratings .........................................................5
5. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Caching .........................................................5
6. Reputons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Reputons ........................................................6
6.1. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Syntax .....................................................6
6.2. Formal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Formal Definition ..........................................6
6.2.1. Imported JSON Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2.1. Imported JSON Terms .................................6
6.2.2. Reputon Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2.2. Reputon Structure ...................................7
6.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.3. Examples ...................................................9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations ............................................11
7.1. application/reputons+json Media Type Registration . . . . 11 7.1. application/reputon+json Media Type Registration ..........11
7.2. Reputation Applications Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Reputation Applications Registry ..........................13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations ........................................15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. References .....................................................15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.1. Normative References ......................................15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2. Informative References ....................................15
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Acknowledgments .......................................16
Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines a data object for use when answering a This document defines a data object for use when answering a
reputation query. It also defines a media type to carry the response reputation query. It also defines a media type to carry the response
set data when using a transport method that follows the media type set data when using a transport method that follows the media type
framework, such as the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) based query framework, such as the query method based on the HyperText Transfer
method defined in [I-D.REPUTE-QUERY-HTTP]. Any future query methods Protocol (HTTP) defined in [RFC7072]. Any future query methods that
that might be developed are expected to use the same data object. might be developed are expected to use the same data object.
Also included is the specification for an IANA registry to contain Also included is the specification for an IANA registry to contain
definitions and symbolic names for known reputation applications and definitions and symbolic names for known reputation applications and
corresponding response sets. corresponding response sets.
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. Reputon 2.1. Reputon
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
the data collected and reported by the server. the data collected and reported by the server.
2.2. Key Words 2.2. 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].
2.3. Other Definitions 2.3. Other Definitions
Other terms of importance in this document are defined in Other terms of importance in this document are defined in [RFC7070],
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], the base document in this document series. the base document in this document series.
3. Description 3. Description
The meta-format selected for the representation of a reputon is The meta-format selected for the representation of a reputon is
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), defined in [JSON]. Accordingly, a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), defined in [JSON]. Accordingly, a
new media type, "application/reputons+json", is defined for the JSON new media type, "application/reputon+json", is defined for the JSON
representation of reputational data, typically in response to a representation of reputational data, typically in response to a
client making a request for such data about some subject. This media client making a request for such data about some subject. This media
type takes no parameters. type takes no parameters.
The body of the media type consists of a JSON document that contains The body of the media type consists of a JSON document that contains
the reputation information requested. A detailed description of the the reputation information requested. A detailed description of the
expected structure of the reply is provided below. expected structure of the reply is provided below.
The media type comprises a single member indicating the name of the The media type comprises a single member indicating the name of the
application context (see Section 5.1 of [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] in which application context (see Section 5.1 of [RFC7070]) in which the
the reputational data are being returned. The application name reputational data are being returned. The application name refers to
refers to a registration as described in Section 7.2, which defines a registration as described in Section 7.2, which defines the valid
the valid assertions and any extensions that might also be valid assertions and any extensions that might also be valid (i.e., the
(i.e., the response set) for that application. response set) for that application.
3.1. Reputon Attributes 3.1. Reputon Attributes
The key pieces of data found in a reputon for all reputation The key pieces of data found in a reputon for all reputation
applications are defined as follows: applications are defined as follows:
rater: The identity of the entity aggregating, computing, and rater: The identity of the entity aggregating, computing, and
providing the reputation information, typically expressed as a DNS providing the reputation information, typically expressed as a DNS
domain name. domain name.
assertion: A keyword indicating the specific assertion or claim assertion: A key word indicating the specific assertion or claim
being rated. being rated.
rated: The identity of the entity being rated. The nature of this rated: The identity of the entity being rated. The nature of this
field is application-specific; it could be domain names, email field is application specific; it could be domain names, email
addresses, driver's license numbers, or anything that uniquely addresses, driver's license numbers, or anything that uniquely
identifies the entity being rated. Documents that define specific identifies the entity being rated. Documents that define specific
reputation applications are required to define syntax and reputation applications are required to define syntax and
semantics for this field. semantics for this field.
rating: The overall rating score for that entity, expressed as a rating: The overall rating score for that entity, expressed as a
floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. See floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. See
Section 4 for discussion. Section 4 for discussion.
The following are OPTIONAL for all applications, to be used in The following are OPTIONAL for all applications, to be used in
skipping to change at page 5, line 33 skipping to change at page 5, line 24
An application service provider might operate with an enhanced form An application service provider might operate with an enhanced form
of common services, which might in turn prompt development and of common services, which might in turn prompt development and
reporting of specialized reputation information. The details of the reporting of specialized reputation information. The details of the
enhancements and specialized information are beyond the scope of this enhancements and specialized information are beyond the scope of this
document, except that the underlying JSON syntax is extensible for document, except that the underlying JSON syntax is extensible for
encoding such provider-specific information. encoding such provider-specific information.
4. Ratings 4. Ratings
The score presented as the value in the rating attribute appears as a The score presented as the value in the rating attribute appears as a
floating point value between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. The intent is floating-point value between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive. The intent is
that the definition of an assertion within an application will that the definition of an assertion within an application will
declare what the anchor values 0.0 and 1.0 specifically mean. declare what the anchor values 0.0 and 1.0 specifically mean.
Generally speaking, 1.0 implies full agreement with the assertion, Generally speaking, 1.0 implies full agreement with the assertion,
while 0.0 indicates no support for the assertion. while 0.0 indicates no support for the assertion.
The definition will also specify the type of scale in use when The definition will also specify the type of scale in use when
generating scores, to which all reputation service providers for that generating scores, to which all reputation service providers for that
application space must adhere. Further discussion can be found in application space must adhere. Further discussion can be found in
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. [RFC7070].
5. Caching 5. Caching
A reputon can contain an "expires" field indicating a timestamp after A reputon can contain an "expires" field indicating a timestamp after
which the client SHOULD NOT use the rating it contains, and SHOULD which the client SHOULD NOT use the rating it contains and SHOULD
issue a new query. issue a new query.
This specification does not mandate any caching of ratings on the This specification does not mandate any caching of ratings on the
part of the client, but there are obvious operational benefits to part of the client, but there are obvious operational benefits to
doing so. In the context of reputation, a cached (and hence, stale) doing so. In the context of reputation, a cached (and hence, stale)
rating can cause desirable traffic to be identified as undesirable, rating can cause desirable traffic to be identified as undesirable,
or vice-versa. or vice versa.
Reputation data is typically most volatile when the subject of the Reputation data is typically most volatile when the subject of the
reputation is young. Accordingly, if a service chooses to include reputation is young. Accordingly, if a service chooses to include
expiration timestamps as part a reply, these values SHOULD be lower expiration timestamps as part a reply, these values SHOULD be lower
for subjects about which little data has been collected. for subjects about which little data has been collected.
6. Reputons 6. Reputons
6.1. Syntax 6.1. Syntax
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 27
assertion for which a client made a specific request. For example, a assertion for which a client made a specific request. For example, a
client asking for assertion "sends-spam" about domain "example.com" client asking for assertion "sends-spam" about domain "example.com"
would expect a reply consisting of a reputon making a "sends-spam" would expect a reply consisting of a reputon making a "sends-spam"
assertion about "example.com" and nothing more. If a client makes a assertion about "example.com" and nothing more. If a client makes a
request about a subject but does not specify an assertion of request about a subject but does not specify an assertion of
interest, the server can return reputons about any assertion for interest, the server can return reputons about any assertion for
which it has data; in effect, the client has asked for any available which it has data; in effect, the client has asked for any available
information about the subject. A client that receives an irrelevant information about the subject. A client that receives an irrelevant
reputon simply ignores it. reputon simply ignores it.
An empty reputon is an acknowledgement by the server that the request An empty reputon is an acknowledgment by the server that the request
has been received, and serves as a positive indication that the has been received, and serves as a positive indication that the
server does not have the information requested. This is semantically server does not have the information requested. This is semantically
equivalent to returning a reputon with a "sample-size" of zero. equivalent to returning a reputon with a "sample-size" of zero.
6.2. Formal Definition 6.2. Formal Definition
[JSON] defines the structure of JSON objects and arrays using a set [JSON] defines the structure of JSON objects and arrays using a set
of primitive elements. Those elements will be used to describe the of primitive elements. Those elements will be used to describe the
JSON structure of a reputation object. JSON structure of a reputation object.
6.2.1. Imported JSON Terms 6.2.1. Imported JSON Terms
OBJECT: a JSON object, defined in Section 2.2 of [JSON] OBJECT: a JSON object, defined in Section 2.2 of [JSON]
MEMBER: a member of a JSON object, defined in Section 2.2 of [JSON] MEMBER: a member of a JSON object, defined in Section 2.2 of [JSON]
MEMBER-NAME: the name of a MEMBER, defined as a "string" in Section MEMBER-NAME: the name of a MEMBER, defined as a "string" in
2.2 of [JSON] Section 2.2 of [JSON]
MEMBER-VALUE: the value of a MEMBER, defined as a "value" in Section MEMBER-VALUE: the value of a MEMBER, defined as a "value" in
2.2 of [JSON] Section 2.2 of [JSON]
ARRAY: an array, defined in Section 2.3 of [JSON] ARRAY: an array, defined in Section 2.3 of [JSON]
ARRAY-VALUE: an element of an ARRAY, defined in Section 2.3 of ARRAY-VALUE: an element of an ARRAY, defined in Section 2.3 of
[JSON] [JSON]
NUMBER: a "number" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] NUMBER: a "number" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON]
INTEGER: an "integer" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON] INTEGER: an "integer" as defined in Section 2.4 of [JSON]
STRING: an "string" as defined in Section 2.5 of [JSON] STRING: a "string" as defined in Section 2.5 of [JSON]
6.2.2. Reputon Structure 6.2.2. Reputon Structure
Using the above terms for the JSON structures, the syntax of a Using the above terms for the JSON structures, the syntax of a
reputation object is defined as follows: reputation object is defined as follows:
reputation-object: an OBJECT containing a MEMBER reputation-context reputation-object: an OBJECT containing a MEMBER reputation-context
and a MEMBER reputon-list and a MEMBER reputon-list
reputation-context: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "application" and reputation-context: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "application" and
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 9
expire-value: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "expires" and MEMBER-VALUE a expire-value: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "expires" and MEMBER-VALUE a
non-negative INTEGER (see "expires" in Section 3.1) non-negative INTEGER (see "expires" in Section 3.1)
ext-value: a MEMBER, for extension purposes; MEMBER-NAME and MEMBER- ext-value: a MEMBER, for extension purposes; MEMBER-NAME and MEMBER-
VALUE will be defined in separate application registrations VALUE will be defined in separate application registrations
6.3. Examples 6.3. Examples
The following simple example: The following simple example:
Content-Type: application/reputons+json Content-Type: application/reputon+json
{ {
"application": "baseball", "application": "baseball",
"reputons": [ "reputons": [
{ {
"rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com", "rater": "RatingsRUs.example.com",
"assertion": "is-good", "assertion": "is-good",
"rated": "Alex Rodriguez", "rated": "Alex Rodriguez",
"rating": 0.99, "rating": 0.99,
"sample-size": 50000 "sample-size": 50000
} }
] ]
} }
...indicates to the client that "RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated ...indicates to the client that "RatingsRUs.example.com" consolidated
50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and 50000 data points (perhaps from everyone in Yankee Stadium) and
concluded that Alex Rodriguez is very very good (0.99) at something. concluded that Alex Rodriguez is very, very good (0.99) at something.
It doesn't tell us what he's good at, and while it might be playing It doesn't tell us what he's good at, and while it might be playing
baseball, it could just as well be paying his taxes on time. baseball, it could just as well be paying his taxes on time.
A more sophisticated usage would define a baseball application with a A more sophisticated usage would define a baseball application with a
response set of specific assertions, so that this example: response set of specific assertions, so that this example:
Content-Type: application/reputons+json Content-Type: application/reputon+json
{ {
"application": "baseball", "application": "baseball",
"reputons:" [ "reputons:" [
{ {
"rater": "baseball-reference.example.com", "rater": "baseball-reference.example.com",
"assertion": "hits-for-power", "assertion": "hits-for-power",
"rated": "Alex Rodriguez", "rated": "Alex Rodriguez",
"rating": 0.99, "rating": 0.99,
"sample-size": 50000 "sample-size": 50000
} }
] ]
} }
...would indicate that 50000 fans polled by the entity baseball- ...would indicate that 50000 fans polled by the entity baseball-
reference.example.com rate Alex Rodriguez very highly in hitting for reference.example.com rate Alex Rodriguez very highly in hitting for
power, whereas this example: power, whereas this example:
Content-Type: application/reputons+json Content-Type: application/reputon+json
{ {
"application": "baseball", "application": "baseball",
"reputons": [ "reputons": [
{ {
"rater": "baseball-reference.example.com", "rater": "baseball-reference.example.com",
"assertion": "strong-hitter", "assertion": "strong-hitter",
"rated": "Alex Rodriguez", "rated": "Alex Rodriguez",
"rating": 0.4, "rating": 0.4,
"confidence": 0.2, "confidence": 0.2,
skipping to change at page 10, line 29 skipping to change at page 10, line 29
} }
...would indicate that a similar poll indicated a somewhat weak ...would indicate that a similar poll indicated a somewhat weak
consensus that Alex Rodriguez tends to fail in critical batting consensus that Alex Rodriguez tends to fail in critical batting
situations during baseball games. situations during baseball games.
The following is an example reputon generated using this schema, The following is an example reputon generated using this schema,
including the media type definition line that identifies a specific including the media type definition line that identifies a specific
reputation application context. Here, reputation agent reputation application context. Here, reputation agent
"rep.example.net" is asserting within the context of the "email-id" "rep.example.net" is asserting within the context of the "email-id"
application (see [I-D.REPUTE-EMAIL-IDENTIFIERS]) that "example.com" application (see [RFC7073]) that "example.com" appears to be
appears to be associated with spam 1.2% of the time, based on just associated with spam 1.2% of the time, based on just short of 17
short of 17 million messages analyzed or reported to date. The million messages analyzed or reported to date. The "email-id"
"email-id" application has declared the extension key "email-id- application has declared the extension key "email-id-identity" to
identity" to indicate how the subject identifier was used in the indicate how the subject identifier was used in the observed data,
observed data, establishing some more specific semantics for the establishing some more-specific semantics for the "rating" value. In
"rating" value. In this case, the extension is used to show the this case, the extension is used to show the identity "example.com",
identity "example.com", the subject of the query, is extracted from the subject of the query, is extracted from the analyzed messages
the analyzed messages using the DomainKeys Identified Mail [DKIM] using the DomainKeys Identified Mail [DKIM] "d=" parameter for
"d=" parameter for messages where signatures validate. The messages where signatures validate. The reputation agent is 95%
reputation agent is 95% confident of this result. A second reputon confident of this result. A second reputon is also present
is also present indicating similar information for the same domain as indicating similar information for the same domain as it is used in
it is used in the context of Sender Policy Framework [SPF] the context of Sender Policy Framework [SPF] evaluations. (See
evaluations. (See [I-D.REPUTE-EMAIL-IDENTIFIERS] for details about [RFC7073] for details about the registered email identifiers
the registered email identifiers application.) application.)
Content-Type: application/reputons+json Content-Type: application/reputon+json
{ {
"application": "email-id", "application": "email-id",
"reputons": [ "reputons": [
{ {
"rater": "rep.example.net", "rater": "rep.example.net",
"assertion": "spam", "assertion": "spam",
"identity": "dkim", "identity": "dkim",
"rated": "example.com", "rated": "example.com",
"confidence": 0.95, "confidence": 0.95,
skipping to change at page 11, line 34 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
"confidence": 0.98, "confidence": 0.98,
"rating": 0.023, "rating": 0.023,
"sample-size": 16938213, "sample-size": 16938213,
"updated": 1317795852 "updated": 1317795852
} }
] ]
} }
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document presents two actions for IANA, namely the creation of This document presents two actions for IANA -- namely, the creation
the new media type "application/reputons+json" and the creation of a of the new media type "application/reputon+json" and the creation of
registry for reputation application types. Another document in this a registry for reputation application types. Another document in
series creates an initial registry entry for the latter. this series creates an initial registry entry for the latter.
7.1. application/reputons+json Media Type Registration 7.1. application/reputon+json Media Type Registration
This section provides the media type registration application from This section provides the media type registration application from
[MIME-REG] for processing by IANA: [MIME-REG] for processing by IANA.
To: media-types@iana.org To: media-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of media type application/reputons+json Subject: Registration of media type application/reputon+json
Type name: application Type name: application
Subtype name: reputon+json Subtype name: reputon+json
Required parameters: none Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: none Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and is used Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and is used
to maintain readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers. to maintain readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers.
Security considerations: See Section 8 of [this document]. Security considerations: See Section 8 of [RFC7071].
Interoperability considerations: Implementers may encounter "app" Interoperability considerations: Implementers may encounter "app"
values, attribute/value pairs, or response set items that they do values, attribute/value pairs, or response set items that they do
not support, which are to be ignored. not support, which are to be ignored.
Published specification: [this document] Published specification: [RFC7071]
Applications that use this media type: Any application that wishes Applications that use this media type: Any application that wishes
to query a service that provides reputation data using the form to query a service that provides reputation data using the form
defined in [I-D.REPUTE-QUERY-HTTP]. The example application is defined in [RFC7072]. The example application is one that
one that provides reputation data about DNS domain names and other provides reputation data about DNS domain names and other
identifiers found in email messages. identifiers found in email messages.
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Additional information: The value of the "app" parameter is Additional information: The value of the "app" parameter is
registered with IANA. registered with IANA.
Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): N/A
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Person and email address to contact for further information: Person and email address to contact for further information:
Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Author: Restrictions on usage: N/A
Nathaniel Borenstein
Murray S. Kucherawy Author:
Nathaniel Borenstein
Murray S. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG Change controller: IESG
Provisional registration?: no
7.2. Reputation Applications Registry 7.2. Reputation Applications Registry
IANA is requested to create the "Reputation Applications" registry. IANA has created the "Reputation Applications" registry. This
This registry will contain names of applications used with the registry contains names of applications used with the
application/reputons+json media type (and other media types that application/reputon+json media type (and other media types that carry
carry reputons), as defined by this document. reputons), as defined by this document.
New registrations or updates are published in accordance with either New registrations or updates are published in accordance with either
the "IETF Review" or "Specification Required" guidelines as described the "IETF Review" or "Specification Required" guidelines as described
in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS].
New registrations and updates are to contain the following New registrations and updates are to contain the following
information: information:
1. Name of the application being registered or updated. Valid names 1. Symbolic name of the application being registered or updated.
conform to the ABNF construction "token" as defined in Valid names conform to the ABNF construction "token" as defined
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One [MIME]. in Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One [MIME]
2. Short description of the application (i.e., the class of entity 2. Short description of the application (i.e., the class of entity
about which it reports reputation data) about which it reports reputation data)
3. The document in which the application is defined 3. The document in which the application is defined
4. New or updated status, which is to be one of: 4. New or updated status, which is to be one of:
current: The application is in current use current: The application is in current use
deprecated: The application is in current use but its use is deprecated: The application is in current use but its use is
discouraged discouraged
historic: The application is no longer in current use historic: The application is no longer in current use
A specification for an application space needs to be specific and A specification for an application space needs to be specific and
clear enough to allow interoperability, and include at least the clear enough to allow interoperability, and include at least the
following details: following details:
o The application's symbolic name, as it appears in the registration o The application's symbolic name, as it appears in the registration
(see above) (see above)
o A description of the subject of a query within this reputation, o A description of the subject of a query within this reputation,
and a legal syntax for the same and a legal syntax for the same
o An optional table of query parameters that are specific to this o An optional table of query parameters that are specific to this
application; each table entry must include: application; each table entry must include:
Name: Name of the query parameter Name: Name of the query parameter
Status: (as above) Status: (as above)
Description: A short description of the purpose of this parameter Description: A short description of the purpose of this parameter
Syntax: A reference to a description of valid syntax for the Syntax: A reference to a description of valid syntax for the
parameter's value parameter's value
Required: "yes" if the parameter is mandatory, "no" otherwise Required: "yes" if the parameter is mandatory; "no" otherwise
o A list of one or more assertions registered within this o A list of one or more assertions registered within this
application; each table entry is to include: application; each table entry is to include:
Name: Name of the assertion Name: Name of the assertion
Description: A short description of the assertion, with specific Description: A short description of the assertion, with specific
meanings for values of 0.0 and 1.0 meanings for values of 0.0 and 1.0
Scale: A short description of the scale used in computing the Scale: A short description of the scale used in computing the
value (see Section 4 of this document) value (see Section 4 of this document)
o An optional list of one or more response set extension keys for o An optional list of one or more response set extension keys for
use within this application; each table entry is to include: use within this application; each table entry is to include:
Name: Name of the extension key Name: Name of the extension key
Description: A short description of the key's intended meaning Description: A short description of the key's intended meaning
Syntax: A description of valid values that can appear associated Syntax: A description of valid values that can appear associated
with the key with the key
The names of attributes registered should be prefixed by the name of The names of attributes registered should be prefixed by the name of
the application itself (e.g., the "foo" application registering a the application itself (e.g., the "foo" application registering a
"bar" attribute should call it "foo-bar") to avoid namespace "bar" attribute should call it "foo-bar") to avoid namespace
collisions. collisions.
For registrations qualifying under "Specification Required" rules, For registrations qualifying under "Specification Required" rules,
the designated expert should confirm the document meets the minima the Designated Expert [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] should confirm the
described above and otherwise looks generally acceptable, and then document meets the minima described above and otherwise looks
approve the registration. generally acceptable, and then approve the registration.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document is primarily an IANA action registering a media type. This document is primarily an IANA action registering a media type.
It does not describe a new protocol that might introduce security It does not describe a new protocol that might introduce security
considerations. considerations.
Discussion of the security and operational impacts of using Discussion of the security and operational impacts of using
reputation services in general can be found throughout reputation services in general can be found throughout
[I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]. [CONSIDERATIONS].
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]
Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation
Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress),
November 2012.
[I-D.REPUTE-QUERY-HTTP] 9.1. Normative References
Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "Reputation Data
Interchange using HTTP and XML",
draft-ietf-repute-query-http (work in progress),
November 2012.
[JSON] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for [JSON] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[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.
9.2. Informative References [RFC7070] Borenstein, N., Kucherawy, M., and A. Sullivan, "An
Architecture for Reputation Reporting", RFC 7070, November
2013.
[DKIM] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed., [RFC7072] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Reputation Query
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376, Protocol", RFC 7072, November 2013.
September 2011.
[I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS] 9.2. Informative References
[CONSIDERATIONS]
Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding
Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations Reputation Services", Work in Progress, May 2013.
(work in progress), November 2012.
[I-D.REPUTE-EMAIL-IDENTIFIERS] [DKIM] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Reputation Vocabulary "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
for Email Identifiers", RFC 6376, September 2011.
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers (work in progress),
November 2012.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[MIME-REG] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC
6838, January 2013.
[MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[MIME-REG] [RFC7073] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Reputation Response
Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Set for Email Identifiers", RFC 7073, November 2013.
Registration Procedures", RFC 4288, December 2005.
[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
RFC 4408, April 2006. 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: Frank Ellermann, Tony Hansen, Jeff Hodges, Simon this specification: Frank Ellermann, Tony Hansen, Jeff Hodges, Simon
Hunt, John Levine, David F. Skoll, and Mykyta Yevstifeyev. Hunt, John Levine, David F. Skoll, and Mykyta Yevstifeyev.
Appendix B. Public Discussion
Public discussion of this suite of documents takes place on the
domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See
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
Waltham, MA 02453 Waltham, MA 02453
USA USA
Phone: +1 781 996 5340 Phone: +1 781 996 5340
Email: nsb@guppylake.com EMail: nsb@guppylake.com
Murray S. Kucherawy Murray S. Kucherawy
270 Upland Drive 270 Upland Drive
San Francisco, CA 94127 San Francisco, CA 94127
USA USA
Email: superuser@gmail.com EMail: superuser@gmail.com
 End of changes. 71 change blocks. 
165 lines changed or deleted 156 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/