idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-repute-query-http-01.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 (January 13, 2012) is 4480 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 197, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (ref. 'HTTP') (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) -- No information found for draft-iet-repute-model - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.REPUTE-MODEL' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5785 (ref. 'WELL-KNOWN-URI') (Obsoleted by RFC 8615) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). 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: July 16, 2012 Cloudmark 6 January 13, 2012 8 Reputation Data Interchange using HTTP and XML 9 draft-ietf-repute-query-http-01 11 Abstract 13 This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation 14 information using the Domain Name System. 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 July 16, 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. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2.2. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3.1. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.2. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 Appendix B. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 1. Introduction 66 This memo defines a method to query a reputation data service for 67 information about an entity, using the HyperText Transfer Protocol 68 (HTTP) as the transport mechanism and XML as the payload format. It 69 is part of a series defining the overall reputation query/response 70 structure as well as the concept of reputation "vocabularies" for 71 particular applications. 73 2. Terminology and Definitions 75 This section defines terms used in the rest of the document. 77 2.1. Keywords 79 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 80 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 81 document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. 83 2.2. Other Definitions 85 Other terms of importance in this memo are defined in 86 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]. 88 3. Description 90 3.1. Query 92 A reputation query made via [HTTP] encodes the question being asked 93 partly in the [URI] and partly within the GET instruction of the 94 protocol. 96 The components to the question being asked comprise the following: 98 o The subject of the query; 100 o The name of the host, or the IP address, at which the reputation 101 service is available; 103 o The name of the reputation application, i.e., the context within 104 which the query is being made; 106 o Optionally, name(s) of the specific reputation assertions or 107 attributies that are being requested. 109 The name of the application MUST be one registered with IANA. A 110 server receiving a query about an unregistered application or one it 111 does not explicitly support MUST return a 404 error code. 113 The syntax for the URI portion of the query is constructed using a 114 template as per [URI-TEMPLATE]. The following variables MUST be 115 available during template expansion: 117 application: The name of the application reputation in whose context 118 the request is being made. 120 scheme: The transport scheme the client will be using for the query. 122 service: The hostname or IP address being queried. 124 Which scheme(s) can be used depends on how the reputation service 125 provider offers its services. Thus, the template could include a 126 specific schema as a fixed string in the template, or it might offer 127 it as a variable in the template. If it is a variable, it is up to 128 the client and server to negotiate out-of-band which schemes are 129 supported for client queries. Implementers should be aware that the 130 template could include a fixed scheme not supported by the client. 132 The following variables are OPTIONAL, but might be required by the 133 template presented for a specific service: 135 assertion: A list of one or more specific assertions of interest to 136 the client. If absent, the server MUST infer that all available 137 assertion information is being requested. 139 passwd: The "password" portion of a client credential. 141 user: The "user" portion of a client credential. 143 Other required or optional query parameters might be defined by 144 documents that register new vocabularies with IANA. 146 The template is retrieved by requesting the [WELL-KNOWN-URI] "repute- 147 template" from the host providing reputation service using HTTP. The 148 server SHOULD return the template in a text/plain reply. If the 149 template cannot be retrieved, the reputation query SHOULD be aborted 150 and/or retried at a later time. The server responding to the 151 template request SHOULD include an Expires field indicating a 152 duration for which the template should be considered valid by clients 153 and not re-queried. Clients SHOULD adhere to the expiration time 154 thus provided or, if none is provided, assume that the template is 155 valid for no less than one day and not repeat the query. 157 For example, given the following template: 159 {scheme}://{service}/{application}/{subject}/{assertion} 161 A query about the use of the domain "example.org" in the "email-id" 162 application context to a service run at "example.com", where that 163 application declares a required "subject" parameter, requesting the 164 "SENDS-SPAM" reputation assertion using HTTP to conduct the query 165 with no specific client authentication information would be formed as 166 follows: 168 http://example.com/email-id/example.org/sends-spam 170 Matching of the attribute name(s) MUST be case-insensitive. 172 3.2. Response 174 The response is expected to be an XML document, contained within a 175 "application/reputon" media type object as defined in 176 [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE]. The XML schema for the document is also 177 specified in that memo. 179 4. IANA Considerations 181 This memo registers the "repute-template" well-known URI in the Well- 182 Known URI registry as defined by [WELL-KNOWN-URI], as follows: 184 URI suffix: repute-template 186 Change controller: IETF 188 Specification document(s): [this memo] 190 Related information: none 192 5. Security Considerations 194 This memo describes security considerations introduced by the query 195 mechanism defined here. 197 [TBD] 199 6. Normative References 201 [HTTP] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 202 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 203 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 205 [I-D.REPUTE-MEDIA-TYPE] 206 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for 207 Reputation Interchange", I-D draft-ietf-repute-media-type, 208 June 2011. 210 [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] 211 Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Model for Reputation 212 Interchange", I-D draft-iet-repute-model, June 2011. 214 [KEYWORDS] 215 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 216 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 218 [URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 219 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986, 220 January 2005. 222 [URI-TEMPLATE] 223 Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M., 224 and D. Orchard, "URI Template", 225 I-D draft-gregorio-uritemplate, September 2011. 227 [WELL-KNOWN-URI] 228 Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known 229 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, 230 April 2010. 232 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 234 The authors would like to thank the following for their contributions 235 to this work: Mark Nottingham, David F. Skoll, and Mykyta 236 Yevstifeyev. 238 Appendix B. Public Discussion 240 Public discussion of this suite of memos takes place on the 241 domainrep@ietf.org mailing list. See 242 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep. 244 Authors' Addresses 246 Nathaniel Borenstein 247 Mimecast 248 203 Crescent St., Suite 303 249 Waltham, MA 02453 250 USA 252 Phone: +1 781 996 5340 253 Email: nsb@guppylake.com 255 Murray S. Kucherawy 256 Cloudmark 257 128 King St., 2nd Floor 258 San Francisco, CA 94107 259 USA 261 Phone: +1 415 946 3800 262 Email: msk@cloudmark.com