idnits 2.17.1 draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC5965, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 20, 2012) is 4326 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'CFWS' is mentioned on line 96, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Individual submission R. Clayton 3 Internet-Draft University of Cambridge 4 Updates: 6591 (if approved) M. Kucherawy 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cloudmark, Inc. 6 Expires: December 22, 2012 June 20, 2012 8 Source Ports in ARF Reports 9 draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-05 11 Abstract 13 This document defines an additional header field for use in Abuse 14 Reporting Format reports to permit the identification of the source 15 port of the connection involved in an abuse incident. 17 This document updates RFC5965 and RFC6591. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2012. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Source-Port Field Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. Time Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 1. Introduction 66 [ARF] defined the Abuse Reporting Format, an extensible message 67 format for Email Feedback Reports. These reports are used to report 68 incidents of email abuse. ARF was extended by [AUTHFAILURE-REPORT] 69 to enable reporting of email authentication failures. These 70 specifications provided for the source IP address to be included in a 71 report. As explained in [LOG], the deployment of IP address sharing 72 techniques requires the source port values to be included in reports 73 if unambiguous identification of the origin of abuse is to be 74 achieved. 76 This document defines an ARF reporting field to contain this 77 information and provides guidance for its use. 79 2. Keywords 81 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 82 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 83 document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 85 3. Source-Port Field Definition 87 A new ARF header field called "Source-Port" is defined. When present 88 in a report, it MUST contain the client port of the TCP connection 89 from which the reported message originated, corresponding to the 90 Source-IP field that contains the client address of that same 91 connection, thereby describing completely the origin of the abuse 92 incident. 94 Per, [ABNF], the formal syntax is: 96 source-port = "Source-Port:" [CFWS] 1*5DIGIT [CFWS] CRLF 98 "CFWS", which represents email-style comments or folding white space, 99 is imported from [MAIL]. 101 When any report is generated that includes the "Source-IP" reporting 102 field (see Section 3.2 of [ARF]), this field SHOULD also be present, 103 unless the port number is unavailable. 105 Use of this field is RECOMMENDED for reports generated per 106 [AUTHFAILURE-REPORT] (see Section 3.1 of that document). 108 4. Time Accuracy 110 [LOG] underscores the importance of accurate clocks when generating 111 reports that include source port information because of the fact that 112 source ports can be recycled very quickly in Internet Service 113 Provider environments. The same considerations described there apply 114 here. 116 Report generators that include an Arrival-Date report field MAY 117 choose to express the value of that date in Universal Coordinated 118 Time (UTC) to enable simpler correlation with local records at sites 119 that are following the provisions of [LOG]. 121 5. IANA Considerations 123 IANA is requested to add the following entry to the Feedback Report 124 Header Fields registry: 126 Field Name: Source-Port 128 Description: TCP source port from which the original message was 129 received 131 Multiple Appearances: No 133 Related Feedback-Type: any 135 Reference: [this document] 137 Status: current 139 6. Security Considerations 141 This extension introduces no new security considerations not already 142 covered in [ARF]. 144 Some security considerations related to the general topic of source 145 port logging can be found in [LOG]. 147 7. References 149 7.1. Normative References 151 [ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for 152 Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, 153 January 2008. 155 [ARF] Shafranovich, Y., Levine, J., and M. Kucherawy, 156 "An Extensible Format for Email Feedback 157 Reports", RFC 5965, August 2010. 159 [AUTHFAILURE-REPORT] Fontana, H., "Authentication Failure Reporting 160 using the Abuse Report Format", RFC 6591, 161 April 2012. 163 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to 164 Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 165 March 1997. 167 [MAIL] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", 168 RFC 5322, October 2008. 170 7.2. Informative References 172 [LOG] Durand, A., Gashinsky, I., Lee, D., and S. 173 Sheppard, "Logging Recommendations for 174 Internet-Facing Servers", RFC 6302, June 2011. 176 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 178 The authors wish to acknowledge the following for their review and 179 constructive criticism of this proposal: Steve Atkins, Scott 180 Kitterman, John Levine, and Doug Otis. 182 The idea for this work originated within the Messaging Anti-Abuse 183 Working Group (MAAWG). 185 Authors' Addresses 187 Richard Clayton 188 University of Cambridge 189 Computer Laboratory 190 JJ Thomson Avenue 191 Cambridge CB3 0FD 192 United Kingdom 194 Phone: +44 1223 763570 195 EMail: richard.clayton@cl.cam.ac.uk 197 Murray S. Kucherawy 198 Cloudmark, Inc. 199 128 King St., 2nd Floor 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 201 US 203 Phone: +1 415 946 3800 204 EMail: superuser@gmail.com