idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-07.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 (May 20, 2013) is 3994 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) ** 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 (~~), 1 warning (==), 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: November 21, 2013 May 20, 2013 7 A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers 8 draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-07 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 November 21, 2013. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] defines a media type to contain a reputon for 82 transport, and also creates a registry for reputation applications 83 and the interesting parameters of each. 85 2. Terminology and Definitions 87 This section defines terms used in the rest of the document. 89 2.1. Key Words 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 95 2.2. Email Definitions 97 Commonly used definitions describing entities in the email 98 architecture are defined and discussed in [EMAIL-ARCH]. 100 2.3. Other Definitions 102 Other terms of importance in this document are defined in 103 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], the base document for the reputation services 104 work. 106 3. Discussion 108 The expression of reputation about an email identifier requires 109 extensions of the base set defined in [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. This 110 document defines and registers some common assertions about an entity 111 found in a piece of [MAIL]. 113 3.1. Assertions 115 The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following 116 assertions: 118 abusive: The subject identifier is associated with sending or 119 handling > email of a personally abusive, threatening, or 120 otherwise harassing nature. 122 fraud: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling 123 of fraudulent email, such as "phishing" (some good discussion on 124 this topic can be found in [IODEF-PHISHING]) 126 invalid-recipients: The subject identifier is associated with 127 delivery attempts to nonexistent recipients 129 malware: The subject identifier is associated with the sending or 130 handling of malware via email 132 spam: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling 133 of unwanted bulk email 135 For all assertions, the "rating" scale is linear: A value of 0.0 136 means there is no data to support the assertion, a value of 1.0 means 137 all accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening 138 values have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as 139 strong of an assertion as a value of "x/2"). 141 3.2. Response Set Extensions 143 The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following 144 OPTIONAL extensions to the basic response set defined in 145 [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]: 147 identity: A token indicating the source of the identifier; that is, 148 where the subject identifier was found in the message. This MUST 149 be one of: 151 dkim: The signing domain, i.e. the value of the "d=" tag, found 152 on a valid [DKIM] signature in the message 154 ipv4: The IPv4 address of the client 156 ipv6: The IPv6 address of the client 157 rfc5321.helo: The RFC5321.Helo value used by the (see [SMTP]) 158 client 160 rfc5321.mailfrom: The RFC5321.MailFrom value of the envelope of 161 the message (see [SMTP]) 163 rfc5322.from: The RFC5322.From field of the message (see [MAIL]) 165 spf: The domain name portion of the identifier (RFC5321.MailFrom 166 or RFC5321.Helo) verified by [SPF]) 168 sources: A token relating a count of the number of sources of data 169 that contributed to the reported reputation. This is in contrast 170 to the "sample-size" parameter, which indicates the total number 171 of reports across all reporting sources. 173 A reply that does not contain the "identity" or "sources" extensions 174 is making a non-specific statement about how the reputation returned 175 was developed. A client can use or ignore such a reply at its 176 discretion. 178 3.3. Query Extensions 180 A query within this application can include the OPTIONAL query 181 parameter "identity" to indicate which specific identity is of 182 interest to the query. Legal values are the same as those listed in 183 Section 3.2. 185 4. IANA Considerations 187 This memo presents one action for IANA, namely the registration of 188 the reputation application "email-id". 190 4.1. Registration of 'email-id' Reputation Application 192 This section registers the "email-id" reputation application, as per 193 the IANA Considerations section of [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. The 194 registration parameters are as folows: 196 o Application name: email-id 198 o Short description: Evaluates DNS domain names or IP addresses 199 found in email identifiers 201 o Defining document: [this document] 202 o Status: current 204 o Subject: A string appropriate to the identifier of interest (see 205 Section 3.2 of this document) 207 o Application-specific query parameters: 209 identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.3 of this document 211 o Application-specific assertions: 213 abusive: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document 215 fraud: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document 217 invalid-recipients: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this 218 document 220 malware: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document 222 spam: (current) as defined in Section 3.1 of this document 224 o Application-specific response set extensions: 226 identity: (current) as defined in Section 3.2 of this document 228 5. Security Considerations 230 This document is primarily an IANA action and doesn't describe any 231 protocols or protocol elements that might introduce new security 232 concerns. 234 Security considerations relevant to email and email authentication 235 can be found in most of the documents listed in the References 236 sections below. Information specific to use of reputation services 237 can be found in [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS]. 239 6. References 241 6.1. Normative References 243 [DKIM] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed., 244 "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376, 245 September 2011. 247 [EMAIL-ARCH] 248 Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, 249 July 2009. 251 [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] 252 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for 253 Reputation Interchange", draft-ietf-repute-media-type 254 (work in progress), November 2012. 256 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] 257 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation 258 Reporting", draft-ietf-repute-model (work in progress), 259 November 2012. 261 [KEYWORDS] 262 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 263 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 265 [SPF] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) 266 for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1", 267 RFC 4408, April 2006. 269 6.2. Informative References 271 [I-D.REPUTE-CONSIDERATIONS] 272 Kucherawy, M., "Operational Considerations Regarding 273 Reputation Services", draft-ietf-repute-considerations 274 (work in progress), November 2012. 276 [IODEF-PHISHING] 277 Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document 278 Class for Reporting Phishing", RFC 5901, July 2010. 280 [MAIL] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, 281 October 2008. 283 [SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, 284 October 2008. 286 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 288 The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following to 289 this specification: Scott Hollenbeck, Scott Kitterman, Peter Koch, 290 John Levine, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, Doug Otis, and David F. 291 Skoll. 293 Appendix B. Public Discussion 295 Public discussion of this suite of memos takes place on the 296 domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See 297 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep. 299 Authors' Addresses 301 Nathaniel Borenstein 302 Mimecast 303 203 Crescent St., Suite 303 304 Waltham, MA 02453 305 USA 307 Phone: +1 781 996 5340 308 Email: nsb@guppylake.com 310 Murray S. Kucherawy 311 270 Upland Drive 312 San Francisco, CA 94127 313 USA 315 Email: superuser@gmail.com