idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 28, 2012) is 4320 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: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 215, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5598 (ref. 'EMAIL-ARCH') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4408 (ref. 'SPF') (Obsoleted by RFC 7208) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 REPUTE Working Group N. Borenstein 3 Internet-Draft Mimecast 4 Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy 5 Expires: December 30, 2012 June 28, 2012 7 A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers 8 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04 10 Abstract 12 This document defines a response set for describing assertions a 13 reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use 14 in generating reputons. 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2012. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 2.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2.2. Email Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2.3. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.1. Assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.2. Response Set Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.3. Query Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 4.1. Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application . . . . . 5 61 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 1. Introduction 71 This document specifies a response set for describing reputation of 72 an email identifier. A "response set" in this context is defined in 73 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and is used to describe assertions a reputation 74 service provider can make about email identifiers as well as meta- 75 data that can be included in such a reply beyond the base set 76 specified there. 78 An atomic reputation response is called a "reputon", also defined in 79 that document. 81 2. Terminology and Definitions 83 This section defines terms used in the rest of the document. 85 2.1. Key Words 87 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 88 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 89 document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 91 2.2. Email Definitions 93 Commonly used definitions describing entities in the email 94 architecture are defined and discussed in [EMAIL-ARCH]. 96 2.3. Other Definitions 98 Other terms of importance in this document are defined in 99 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], the base document for the reputation services 100 work. 102 3. Discussion 104 The expression of reputation about an email identifier requires 105 extensions of the base set defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. This 106 document defines and registers some common assertions about an entity 107 found in a piece of [MAIL]. 109 3.1. Assertions 111 The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following 112 assertions: 114 FRAUD: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling 115 of fraudulent email, such as "phishing" (some good discussion on 116 this topic can be found in [IODEF-PHISHING]) 118 MALWARE: The subject identifier is associated with the sending or 119 handling of malware via email 121 SPAM: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling 122 of unwanted bulk email 124 INVALID-RECIPIENTS: The subject identifier is associated with 125 delivery attempts to nonexistent recipients 127 For all assertions, the RATING scale is linear: A value of 0.0 means 128 there is no data to support the assertion, a value of 1.0 means all 129 accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening values 130 have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as strong 131 of an assertion as a value of "x/2"). 133 3.2. Response Set Extensions 135 The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following 136 OPTIONAL extensions to the basic response set defined in 137 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]: 139 IDENTITY: A token indicating the source of the identifier; that is, 140 where the subject identifier was found in the message. This MUST 141 be one of: 143 DKIM: The signing domain, i.e. the value of the "d=" tag, found 144 on a valid [DKIM] signature in the message 146 IPV4: The IPv4 address of the client 148 IPV6: The IPv6 address of the client 150 RFC5321.HELO: The RFC5321.Helo value used by the (see [SMTP]) 151 client 153 RFC5321.MAILFROM: The RFC5321.MailFrom value of the envelope of a 154 message of the message (see [SMTP]) 156 RFC5322.FROM: The RFC5322.From field of the message (see [MAIL]) 158 SPF: The domain name portion of the identifier (RFC5321.MailFrom 159 or RFC5321.Helo) verified by [SPF]) 161 SOURCES: A token relating a count of the number of sources of data 162 that contributed to the reported reputation. This is in contrast 163 to the SAMPLE-SIZE parameter, which indicates the total number of 164 reports across all reporting sources. 166 A reply that does not contain the IDENTITY or SOURCES extensions is 167 making a non-specific statement about how the reputation returned was 168 developed. A client can use or ignore such a reply at its 169 discretion. 171 3.3. Query Extensions 173 A query within this application can include the OPTIONAL query 174 parameter "identity" to indicate which specific identity is of 175 interest to the query. Legal values are the same as those listed in 176 Section 3.2. 178 4. IANA Considerations 180 This memo presents one action for IANA, namely the registration of 181 the reputation application "email-id". 183 4.1. Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application 185 This section registers the "email-id" reputation application, as per 186 the IANA Considerations section of [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. The 187 registration parameters are as folows: 189 o Application name: email-id 191 o Short description: Evaluates DNS domain names found in email 192 identifiers 194 o Defining document: [this document] 196 o Status: current 198 o Subject: A string appropriate to the identifier of interest (see 199 Section 3.2 of this document) 201 o Application-specific query parameters: 203 identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.3 of this document 205 o Application-specific assertions: none 206 o Application-specific response set extensions: 208 identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.2 of this document 210 5. Security Considerations 212 This section describes security considerations introduced by the 213 reputation application and response set extensions defined here. 215 [TBD] 217 6. References 219 6.1. Normative References 221 [DKIM] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed., 222 "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376, 223 September 2011. 225 [EMAIL-ARCH] 226 Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, 227 July 2009. 229 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] 230 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation 231 Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress), 232 November 2011. 234 [KEYWORDS] 235 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 236 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 238 [SPF] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) 239 for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1", 240 RFC 4408, April 2006. 242 6.2. Informative References 244 [IODEF-PHISHING] 245 Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document 246 Class for Reporting Phishing", RFC 5901, July 2010. 248 [MAIL] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, 249 October 2008. 251 [SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, 252 October 2008. 254 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 256 The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following to 257 this specification: Scott Kitterman, John Levine, S. Moonesamy, Doug 258 Otis, and David F. Skoll. 260 Appendix B. Public Discussion 262 Public discussion of this suite of memos takes place on the 263 domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See 264 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep. 266 Authors' Addresses 268 Nathaniel Borenstein 269 Mimecast 270 203 Crescent St., Suite 303 271 Waltham, MA 02453 272 USA 274 Phone: +1 781 996 5340 275 Email: nsb@guppylake.com 277 Murray S. Kucherawy 278 2063 42nd Avenue 279 San Francisco, CA 94116 280 USA 282 Email: superuser@gmail.com