From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Apr 4 00:02:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DD121F8720 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:02:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.471 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P0PJkPnZKSKi for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E03A21F85D0 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 00:02:33 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: XML vs. JSON examples Thread-Index: Ac0SMOklAVxTt9GpRQ+wHEGKJM74cA== Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:02:33 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.22.1.152] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:02:35 -0000 --_005_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_" --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the repute query, one with = XML and one with JSON. Here they are (attached) from my own application. I'm planning to post a new version of the media-type and query-http documen= ts with all the suggested changes, including this one, by the end of the we= ek. -MSK --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the = repute query, one with XML and one with JSON.  Here they are (attached= ) from my own application.

 

I’m planning to post a new version of the medi= a-type and query-http documents with all the suggested changes, including t= his one, by the end of the week.

 

-MSK

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_-- --_005_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="repute.json" Content-Description: repute.json Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="repute.json"; size=266; creation-date="Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:02:07 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:00:39 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9yZXB1dG9uCgp7CgkicmF0ZXIiOiAicmVwdXRlLm9w ZW5ka2ltLm9yZyIsCgkicmF0ZXItYXV0aGVudGljaXR5IjogMS4wLAoJImFzc2VydGlvbiI6ICJT UEFNIiwKCSJleHRlbnNpb24iOiB7CgkJIklERU5USVRZIjogIkRLSU0iLAoJCSJSQVRFIjogOAoJ fSwKCSJyYXRlZCI6ICJnbWFpbC5jb20iLAoJInJhdGluZyI6IDAuMDA1NzMxMzksCgkic2FtcGxl LXNpemUiOiA0NTIsCgkidXBkYXRlZCI6IDEzMzM0NDA1NzQKfQo= --_005_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/xml; name="repute.xml" Content-Description: repute.xml Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="repute.xml"; size=392; creation-date="Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:02:07 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:00:32 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9yZXB1dG9uCgo8cmVwdXRhdGlvbj4KIDxyZXB1dG9u PgogIDxyYXRlcj5yZXB1dGUub3BlbmRraW0ub3JnPC9yYXRlcj4KICA8cmF0ZXItYXV0aGVudGlj aXR5PjE8L3JhdGVyLWF1dGhlbnRpY2l0eT4KICA8YXNzZXJ0aW9uPlNQQU08L2Fzc2VydGlvbj4K ICA8ZXh0ZW5zaW9uPklERU5USVRZOiBES0lNPC9leHRlbnNpb24+CiAgPGV4dGVuc2lvbj5SQVRF OiA4PC9leHRlbnNpb24+CiAgPHJhdGVkPmdtYWlsLmNvbTwvcmF0ZWQ+CiAgPHJhdGluZz4wLjAw NTczMTM5PC9yYXRpbmc+CiAgPHNhbXBsZS1zaXplPjQ1Mjwvc2FtcGxlLXNpemU+CiAgPHVwZGF0 ZWQ+MTMzMzQ0MDU3NDwvdXBkYXRlZD4KIDwvcmVwdXRvbj4KPC9yZXB1dGF0aW9uPgo= --_005_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0exchmbx901corpclo_-- From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Wed Apr 4 03:26:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4AB21F86E5 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 03:26:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoBG3LRs0C6E for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 03:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008E121F8742 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 03:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q34AQ1RI023291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:26:02 +0200 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q34AQ0H1006964; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:26:01 +0200 Received: from FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.25]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:25:26 +0200 Received: from 10.144.252.80 ([10.144.252.80]) by FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.182]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.36]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:25:25 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121 Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:25:40 +0300 From: Hannes Tschofenig To: Murray Kucherawy , "domainrep@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples Thread-Index: Ac0SMOklAVxTt9GpRQ+wHEGKJM74cAAHF9Aw In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3416390741_906973" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2012 10:25:26.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[407EDC90:01CD124D] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 3634 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1333535162-00003570-4526F501/0-0/0-0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:26:07 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3416390741_906973 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hi Murrary,=20 Wouldn't you have to also add the namespace declaration to the XML instance document, namely Wouldn't the content type be * application/json ( for JSON) * application/reputation+xml (for XML) Ciao Hannes On 4/4/12 10:02 AM, "Murray Kucherawy" wrote: > Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the repute query, one wit= h XML > and one with JSON. Here they are (attached) from my own application. > =20 > I=B9m planning to post a new version of the media-type and query-http docum= ents > with all the suggested changes, including this one, by the end of the wee= k. > =20 > -MSK >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep --B_3416390741_906973 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples Hi Murrary,

Wouldn't you have to also add the namespace declaration to the XML instance= document, namely

<?xml version=3D"1.0" encoding=3D"UTF-8"?>
   <reputation
     xmlns=3D"urn:ietf:param= s:xml:ns:reputation">

Wouldn't the content type be
  • application/json ( for JSON)
  • application/reputation+xml (for XML)

Ciao
Hannes



On 4/4/12 10:02 AM, "Murray Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10.5pt'>Tony requested in Paris that I post examples o= f the repute query, one with XML and one with JSON.  Here they are (att= ached) from my own application.
 
I’m planning to post a new version of the media-type and query-http d= ocuments with all the suggested changes, including this one, by the end of t= he week.
 
-MSK

___________= ____________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.= org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
--B_3416390741_906973-- From tony@att.com Wed Apr 4 06:11:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECE621F8750 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 06:11:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.629 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rlgBgCmTCXr for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 06:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037CC21F8707 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 06:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 1784c7f4.0.1105240.00-476.3059419.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:11:15 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4f7c48731970a5eb-92c8fc58a2fa6927cd2265869ba846db7bca5364 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q34DBDPl021700 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:11:13 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q34DB65Q021633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:11:07 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:10:52 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q34DApka017036 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:10:52 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q34DAleW016900 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:10:47 -0400 Received: from [135.70.113.218] (vpn-135-70-113-218.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.113.218]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20120404130750gw1004orsre> (Authid: tony); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:07:52 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.113.218] Message-ID: <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:10:41 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070901000709080104050203" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=PyV58g1XkOYA:10 a=vnNYxAp2wzwA:10 a=nqx3OqInfd] X-AnalysisOut: [IA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=HDFy3L1aAAAA:8 a=-3YC2VM8_gj6oybsa38A:9 a=] X-AnalysisOut: [T0rcDdVLU9hRdfoMF5YA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 ] X-AnalysisOut: [a=4qQjdvv6hAZ52CdNgroA:9 a=AaGl1_Vff7fsUwzvXXsA:7 a=hTZeC7] X-AnalysisOut: [Yk6K0A:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10] Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:11:20 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070901000709080104050203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Murray. As expected, the differences are mostly cosmetic. I think the layering you used for extensions with json are cleaner than your example in xml, which might actually indicate a problem with the way the xml is laid out. Should there be an outer key-value indicator that this is a reputon, as in { "reputon" : { "rater" : "repute.opendkim.org", .... ? I'm supportive of switching the document over to using json. I think the content types should be application/reputon+json instead of application/reputon. (And application/reputon+xml if we somehow wind up with the xml version instead.) Tony On 4/4/2012 3:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the repute query, one > with XML and one with JSON. Here they are (attached) from my own > application. > > I'm planning to post a new version of the media-type and query-http > documents with all the suggested changes, including this one, by the > end of the week. > > --------------070901000709080104050203 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Murray.

As expected, the differences are mostly cosmetic. I think the layering you used for extensions with json are cleaner than your example in xml, which might actually indicate a problem with the way the xml is laid out.

Should there be an outer key-value indicator that this is a reputon, as in

    { "reputon" : {
        "rater" : "repute.opendkim.org",
        ....
?

I'm supportive of switching the document over to using json.

I think the content types should be application/reputon+json instead of application/reputon. (And application/reputon+xml if we somehow wind up with the xml version instead.)

    Tony

On 4/4/2012 3:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the repute query, one with XML and one with JSON.  Here they are (attached) from my own application.

 

I’m planning to post a new version of the media-type and query-http documents with all the suggested changes, including this one, by the end of the week.


--------------070901000709080104050203-- From dotis@mail-abuse.org Wed Apr 4 10:52:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9002921F87DF for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:52:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4dwf39OfdF7O for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailserv.mail-abuse.org (mailserv.mail-abuse.org [150.70.98.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC5321F87DE for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from US-DOUGO-MAC.local (unknown [10.31.37.8]) by mailserv.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C360174024B for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F7C8A72.1060203@mail-abuse.org> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:52:50 -0700 From: Douglas Otis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:52:57 -0000 On 4/4/12 6:10 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: > Thank you Murray. > > As expected, the differences are mostly cosmetic. I think the layering > you used for extensions with json are cleaner than your example in > xml, which might actually indicate a problem with the way the xml is > laid out. > > Should there be an outer key-value indicator that this is a reputon, > as in > > { "reputon" : { > "rater" : "repute.opendkim.org", > .... > ? > > I'm supportive of switching the document over to using json. > > I think the content types should be application/reputon+json instead > of application/reputon. (And application/reputon+xml if we somehow > wind up with the xml version instead.) Dear Tony, Disagree. XML showing a 50% increase is more than cosmetic (without including templates). Similar considerations were made in the CoRE protocol that even extended to HTTP components. Low level services (not intended for direct human consumption) should consider the merits of resource conservation with the benefit of retaining suitability in different environments. Support of jason is welcome, but is there a real need to consider the format optional with addition of reputon+json instead of just reputon? Regards, Douglas Otis > > On 4/4/2012 3:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the repute query, one >> with XML and one with JSON. Here they are (attached) from my own >> application. >> >> I'm planning to post a new version of the media-type and query-http >> documents with all the suggested changes, including this one, by the >> end of the week. >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > domainrep mailing list > domainrep@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Apr 4 07:03:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAE221F87E1 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:03:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O5NgVsLNzPY5 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19EF921F87DF for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.58.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q34E3avf025015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:03:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4F7C54B5.1060406@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:03:33 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Hansen References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:03:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:08:33 -0700 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:03:44 -0000 On 4/4/2012 6:10 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: > I think the content types should be application/reputon+json instead of > application/reputon. (And application/reputon+xml if we somehow wind up with the > xml version instead.) The latter naming template convention (+xml) is well-established. Even if an equivalent convention has not yet been established for json, it makes sense to reapply the model for naming json-based media-types. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Apr 4 11:27:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A4E21F8763 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n866tQ1AKs2r for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A144221F8755 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:27:41 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples Thread-Index: Ac0SMOklAVxTt9GpRQ+wHEGKJM74cAAbhkSAAAOhEpA= Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:27:39 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9828@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9828exchmbx901corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:27:43 -0000 --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9828exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since all of the outer containers in the reply would be reputons, isn't it = redundant to actually say that? Or is the point to be sure, just in case y= ou happen to be talking to the wrong service somehow? -MSK From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Tony Hansen Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:11 AM Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples Thank you Murray. As expected, the differences are mostly cosmetic. I think the layering you = used for extensions with json are cleaner than your example in xml, which m= ight actually indicate a problem with the way the xml is laid out. Should there be an outer key-value indicator that this is a reputon, as in { "reputon" : { "rater" : "repute.opendkim.org", .... ? I'm supportive of switching the document over to using json. I think the content types should be application/reputon+json instead of app= lication/reputon. (And application/reputon+xml if we somehow wind up with t= he xml version instead.) Tony On 4/4/2012 3:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the repute query, one with = XML and one with JSON. Here they are (attached) from my own application. I'm planning to post a new version of the media-type and query-http documen= ts with all the suggested changes, including this one, by the end of the we= ek. --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9828exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since all of the outer= containers in the reply would be reputons, isn’t it redundant to act= ually say that?  Or is the point to be sure, just in case you happen t= o be talking to the wrong service somehow?

 

-MSK=

 

From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-boun= ces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:11 AM
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples

 

Thank you Murray.

As expected, the differences are mostly cosmetic. I think the layering you = used for extensions with json are cleaner than your example in xml, which m= ight actually indicate a problem with the way the xml is laid out.

Should there be an outer key-value indicator that this is a reputon, as in<= br>
    { "reputon" : {
        "rater" : "repute.open= dkim.org",
        ....
?

I'm supportive of switching the document over to using json.

I think the content types should be application/reputon+json instead of= application/reputon. (And application/reputon+xml if we somehow wind u= p with the xml version instead.)

    Tony

On 4/4/2012 3:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

Tony requested in Paris that I post examples of the = repute query, one with XML and one with JSON.  Here they are (attached= ) from my own application.

 

I’m planning to post a new version of the medi= a-type and query-http documents with all the suggested changes, including t= his one, by the end of the week.

 

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9828exchmbx901corpclo_-- From tony@att.com Wed Apr 4 15:33:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08E111E8122; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qJugEg33CWX; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B80511E811E; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 72ccc7f4.0.1362671.00-404.3787430.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:33:12 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4f7ccc28596645c1-c70c0a286e1ef63a8c40952db801a3ce74cbd015 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q34MXBAF012821; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:33:11 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q34MX7fR012796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:33:08 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:32:42 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q34MWgBK000912; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:32:42 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q34MWeUY000801; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:32:40 -0400 Received: from [135.70.246.76] (vpn-135-70-246-76.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.246.76]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20120404222945gw1004oruve> (Authid: tony); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 22:29:45 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.246.76] Message-ID: <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:32:38 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <4F7C5471.8030309@bbiw.net> In-Reply-To: <4F7C5471.8030309@bbiw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=lfzeU_yUqTgA:10 a=vnNYxAp2wzwA:10 a=nqx3OqInfd] X-AnalysisOut: [IA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:1] X-AnalysisOut: [0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=zQP7CpK] X-AnalysisOut: [OAAAA:8 a=U0dKssfmjYBsul6zYL0A:9 a=burmj3Rp3i3EbdaRMHwA:7 ] X-AnalysisOut: [a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10] Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:33:12 -0000 On 4/4/2012 10:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > The latter naming template convention (+xml) is well-established. > > Even if an equivalent convention has not yet been established for > json, it makes sense to reapply the model for naming json-based > media-types. Although draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs both mentions the use of +json and defines a registry that can be used to register it, and despite +json being used already in a variety of registered media types, +json hasn't been formally defined yet. So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to fill in this hole. Discussion of the draft should occur on the APPS AWG mailing list . Tony Hansen tony@att.com From derhoermi@gmx.net Wed Apr 4 16:06:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026FB21F8539 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:06:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iPRTRUZYAZfh for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AEAE921F8531 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Apr 2012 23:05:59 -0000 Received: from dslb-094-223-206-119.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.223.206.119] by mail.gmx.net (mp032) with SMTP; 05 Apr 2012 01:05:59 +0200 X-Authenticated: #723575 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/SMbZ/4tLSdTX5hi65PTWKGJJTtLhE1cZuzeyH9r YSc9ObI05TturQ From: Bjoern Hoehrmann To: Tony Hansen Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:06:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <4F7C5471.8030309@bbiw.net> <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:06:45 -0700 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , General discussion of application-layer protocols Subject: Re: [domainrep] [apps-discuss] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:06:02 -0000 * Tony Hansen wrote: >Although draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs both mentions the use of >+json and defines a registry that can be used to register it, and >despite +json being used already in a variety of registered media types, >+json hasn't been formally defined yet. > >So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to >fill in this hole. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04304.html -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ From ned.freed@mrochek.com Wed Apr 4 16:38:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B42111E80B5; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8yYIEVpV2cEc; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEE811E809F; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODXEGIXFF40058Y9@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODX7A1LRLC00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <01ODXEGFAIIY00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:06:06 +0200" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <4F7C5471.8030309@bbiw.net> <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:39:41 -0700 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , General discussion of application-layer protocols Subject: Re: [domainrep] [apps-discuss] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:38:50 -0000 > * Tony Hansen wrote: > >Although draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs both mentions the use of > >+json and defines a registry that can be used to register it, and > >despite +json being used already in a variety of registered media types, > >+json hasn't been formally defined yet. > > > >So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to > >fill in this hole. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04304.html It someone wants to do this registration in an RFC, I have no objection - as long as the RFC in question isn't the registration document itself. Ned From tony@att.com Wed Apr 4 20:44:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E3A11E80C5; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 20:44:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.776 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.776 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Siy5c9Raq2v; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 20:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1498F11E80AB; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 20:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 8251d7f4.0.1437362.00-304.3989042.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:44:41 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4f7d15295a4bae63-bffd7e3e2735bfdfba63c48424556a8580fccefc Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q353idON031759; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:44:40 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q353iX3n031739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:44:34 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:44:21 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q353iKu1004119; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:44:20 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q353iECe003957; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:44:16 -0400 Received: from [135.70.50.134] (vpn-135-70-50-134.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.50.134]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20120405034118gw1004orv7e> (Authid: tony); Thu, 5 Apr 2012 03:41:19 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.50.134] Message-ID: <4F7D150B.1000604@att.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:44:11 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" , General discussion of application-layer protocols References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <4F7C5471.8030309@bbiw.net> <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=mW1RiBFPTJEA:10 a=vnNYxAp2wzwA:10 a=WtyMWy3etK] X-AnalysisOut: [IA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:1] X-AnalysisOut: [0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=aHbQn7i] X-AnalysisOut: [Ur0rU4xo5ydYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=GD-vvujBj0gA:10 a=2i86] X-AnalysisOut: [k7FQ2MBY2oPB:21] Subject: Re: [domainrep] [apps-discuss] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:44:42 -0000 Hmmm, interesting. Even though I'm a co-author on that doc, I forgot about that particular tidbit in it. :-) I still think it's worth separating out the registration of these suffixes and making them explicit. Tony Hansen On 4/4/2012 7:06 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Tony Hansen wrote: >> Although draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs both mentions the use of >> +json and defines a registry that can be used to register it, and >> despite +json being used already in a variety of registered media types, >> +json hasn't been formally defined yet. >> >> So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to >> fill in this hole. > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04304.html From raz@raz.cx Wed Apr 4 21:22:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F24721F8721 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IjTfC8zX3wNt for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sg.rolandturner.com (sg.rolandturner.com [175.41.138.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A4921F8711 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:22:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raz.cx; s=20120325; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=s1HoBi0bcCfpjYSgYKSWEFFwjQMx8BtC469N6mJE/Ws=; b=Y/38BaA6SJEfimfZPlrXq0vf4su1mY45caisZuOWa3RwZs36YyH72dujP0WWCHseriALR0ncwsQMw4Jzk7cklZ5tnJiF3z8b5LxkpH5L7Nx6NjJLnMKMz4HxfPBZLRsmR49FddiGwiQNMq2nxENLkpXzr3xXvgrQZofkDZUxYGQ=; Authentication-Results: sg.rolandturner.com; none; iprev=fail policy.iprev=116.12.149.133 Received: from [116.12.149.133] (port=50394 helo=[10.100.1.165]) by sg.rolandturner.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SFeDE-0001sB-0J; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:22:20 +0000 Message-ID: <4F7D1DFB.1040002@raz.cx> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 12:22:19 +0800 From: Roland Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <4F7C54B5.1060406@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4F7C54B5.1060406@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:22:38 -0000 +1 On 04/04/2012 22:03, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 4/4/2012 6:10 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: >> I think the content types should be application/reputon+json instead of >> application/reputon. (And application/reputon+xml if we somehow wind >> up with the >> xml version instead.) > > > The latter naming template convention (+xml) is well-established. > > Even if an equivalent convention has not yet been established for > json, it makes sense to reapply the model for naming json-based > media-types. > > d/ From ned.freed@mrochek.com Wed Apr 4 17:01:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D6E11E8135; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:01:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.733 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.866, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gvZ1WiCUg83A; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DE511E8133; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODXF8A2DPS00WEY6@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ODX7A1LRLC00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <01ODXF88B37200ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:53:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:32:38 -0400" <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <4F7C5471.8030309@bbiw.net> <4F7CCC06.7030503@att.com> To: Tony Hansen X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:25:48 -0700 Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" , General discussion of application-layer protocols Subject: Re: [domainrep] [apps-discuss] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:01:12 -0000 > On 4/4/2012 10:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > The latter naming template convention (+xml) is well-established. > > > > Even if an equivalent convention has not yet been established for > > json, it makes sense to reapply the model for naming json-based > > media-types. > Although draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs both mentions the use of > +json and defines a registry that can be used to register it, and > despite +json being used already in a variety of registered media types, > +json hasn't been formally defined yet. > So, I posted draft-hansen-media-type-suffix-regs-00 for consideration to > fill in this hole. The draft looks good to me. The one question I have is whether or not we also want to register +ber for Basic Encoding Rules. +der is actually a subset of +ber, but while some types require use of DER, there are probably some that do not, and using +der for those would be incorrect. And either one can be processed to some extend without the ASN.1 schema. The latter point is why it doesn't make sense to register +per for Packed Encoding Rules. PER cannot be processed without knowing the ASN.1 schema involved, because what's in the schema changes the representation on the wire. I've also never heard of any actual use of PER or Canonical Encoding Rules (CER), so I see no reason to bother with either. Which is a pity, because I like CER a lot more than DER. Ned From dcrocker@gmail.com Thu Apr 5 04:33:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D6A21F8772 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:33:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SAaWanDz2PY5 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E6221F8771 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so2096201dad.27 for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ef0wPI3weo70k9KEW8HMMyuqNriV5OJLR8/U4N51qD0=; b=veOk0TvqKLMPOq0EEZBlOkKzot/cxvedVIFcGA/VRVE2UoiPFJAx7YPtqZ1s3xrYg/ v3CciC2oh0TrhpgwKs5oqgSsJqcUou8Va5wYv4hT99OG0s6EwAJnBvjqTsTgd2Rk9nOY h83GgzhjEG9iXvstNosFyq7/Dg9EFkCdgWvufvk1s426bYCk/Mb65QjjHunGyJMmkrEv W2ySHPCr32k4UWy+qPrU9+fE+KLNjspCXLqNRzPqOexg0xH+6sACOL6Km4zVun2LmygU m7Db1Mt+PJ6nzbEuelfq+FAZeH5uZiUk/dC1GifdbSgi9+Z6yqO5vllQHsx3FJCNgqbX q63A== Received: by 10.68.239.233 with SMTP id vv9mr6596570pbc.75.1333625603664; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net. [67.127.58.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b4sm3037062pbc.7.2012.04.05.04.33.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7D82FC.8020500@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:33:16 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C8BC0@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4F7C4851.4070405@att.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9828@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9828@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] XML vs. JSON examples X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:33:24 -0000 On 4/4/2012 11:27 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Since all of the outer containers in the reply would be reputons, isn’t it > redundant to actually say that? Or is the point to be sure, just in case you > happen to be talking to the wrong service somehow? standalone self-identification is usually much better than relying on context to define things. Your second sentence is a good example of the reason. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dcrocker@gmail.com Thu Apr 5 16:13:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244C221F865D for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2n0ckjaqjaxz for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F4121F8656 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dady13 with SMTP id y13so2966023dad.27 for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:13:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xdFPxZx09d8cmfvMwM6tLV7Jcw2YKqQVTYswatT1YMA=; b=DECaw7rdHVhM49jZI2qa1W6/y7s2Q7Z1lOkjoCmn+8/o3wxGFYapMuiZEhHiuFVLfQ oiPDN0fxfVDDzvEjRLb6PqD3Gu38cBAfi7sA7PbZLt8tlwS3JJsZVWV833v2XvtOrQMJ VaqUoUwdFq3BqIJ01TEvmsUVIfJ5j4e0p7EZAiL+c+T72FRAmluYa7wg7KhABAIdcQSg J3HP+jTX/jPgT8f6UNxyeVzQ+Oad7+XKLFEC9sFQthIaLyVFyvry/K5KAE28VI8lxNcr P4fMB/E6gQo2UtDcnJJGLBLg6nTxXnj9QHZOmFMVgvlQOyoBwRtyCG8LOGZPQsy15XQr 9+0g== Received: by 10.68.130.227 with SMTP id oh3mr10727040pbb.12.1333667588410; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.28] (adsl-108-209-221-148.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [108.209.221.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y5sm4467294pbk.5.2012.04.05.16.13.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7E26F5.5080508@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:12:53 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [domainrep] Paris wg minutes X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 23:13:09 -0000 G'day, The draft minutes for our Paris face2face are at: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/repute/minutes Absent objections, corrections or additions, I'll submit them as formal minutes on Monday. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Apr 6 00:40:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59E521F85F7; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:40:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDGBUbQYFfjx; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A43021F85F4; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:40:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120406074023.7923.41934.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:40:23 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-02.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:40:24 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of = the IETF. Title : Reputation Data Interchange using HTTP and JSON Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-query-http-02.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-04-06 This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation information using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-02.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Apr 6 00:40:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333D521F8615; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:40:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.322 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lw0K0koa9OEz; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7799521F860F; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:40:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120406074043.8076.56513.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:40:43 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-03.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:40:54 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of = the IETF. Title : A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-03.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-04-06 This document defines a response set for describing assertions a reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use in generating reputons. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-03.= txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-03.t= xt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Apr 6 00:41:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037BE21F863C; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:41:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WEIaPFMMwqbS; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE9C21F8610; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:41:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120406074103.7906.40064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:41:03 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-02.txt X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:41:04 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of = the IETF. Title : A Media Type for Reputation Interchange Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-repute-media-type-02.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-04-06 This document defines a media type for exchanging reputation information about an arbitrary class of object. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-02.txt From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Apr 6 00:44:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BEB21F8618 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:44:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RgaLEQjhyKiQ for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209F021F8319 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 00:44:45 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Query, media type, and email ID drafts updated Thread-Index: Ac0TySKLuGhyhlRjQlu6ITybJbMc4g== Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 07:44:45 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CC8E7@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CC8E7exchmbx901corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [domainrep] Query, media type, and email ID drafts updated X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:44:47 -0000 --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CC8E7exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've posted updated to the three main specification drafts based on the dis= cussion at the Paris meeting. Thanks to all of those who participated. I'll adjust my implementation accordingly and do a release in the near futu= re. Please do let me know if I've missed anything; I spent more time at the mic= rophone than actually taking notes. -MSK --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CC8E7exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’ve posted updated to the three main specific= ation drafts based on the discussion at the Paris meeting.  Thanks to = all of those who participated.

 

I’ll adjust my implementation accordingly and = do a release in the near future.

 

Please do let me know if I’ve missed anything;= I spent more time at the microphone than actually taking notes.=

 

-MSK

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280CC8E7exchmbx901corpclo_-- From tmacaulay@2keys.ca Sun Apr 15 06:41:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0842421F87AB for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:41:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a7Kaji1Z4uqn for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.2keys.ca (mail.2keys.ca [72.1.200.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD86321F8751 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B0A281113 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:35:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at 2keys.ca Received: from mail.2keys.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.2keys.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gzT8ai8AElF5 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.62] (unknown [184.151.114.100]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 183B328110B for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:35:33 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:41:08 -0400 From: Tyson Macaulay To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [domainrep] Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:41:33 -0000 Everyone, I attended the domain rep session in Paris and went to the mic to mention an IPv6 Destination Option draft which described a delivery system for reputation information. (See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-macaulay-6man-packet-stain/) Knowledgable 6man veterans have advised me that an informational RFC related to the problem-statement should be developed, circulated and accepted before driving forward with the v6-Destinatin Option draft. The problem statement under consideration would consist of: 1) a description of internet reputation intelligence and how it might be derived (spam logs, botnet C&C traffic, DDOS attacks, other indicators of intent or compromise) 2) the proactive capabilities and benefits of reputation intelligence 3) the challenges of legacy, signature and heuristic-based threat management systems 4) review of different reputation-delivery models My question to this group: has this already been done in full or in part elsewhere for IETF? I reviewed draft-dskoll-reputation-reporting-04 and the other related drafts but did not notice a detailed discussion of this nature. (Please forgive me if I have missed something that should be obvious). Thanks, Tyson --=20 Tyson Macaulay, BA CISSP CISA VP =AD Technology 2Keys Security Solutions Phone: +1 613 292 9132 email: tmacaulay@2keys.ca From msk@cloudmark.com Sun Apr 15 20:28:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE4221F8705 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:28:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.674 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.674 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FhkNTVvXUKwK for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0A421F86FA for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id yTUW1i0010as01C01TUWaw; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:28:30 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=NYRkJh/4 c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=zHqlJ5y73KYA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=xM8MN3XQ68Ik-VFJR1YA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:28:13 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? Thread-Index: AQHNGw2Ai6f/31RBxUiyoPNjYyDMTJacyx+w Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:28:13 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F2B7B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1334546910; bh=TmabnMqtFferI0Qn6exuELVvr4B5OUS1Ps/1gZYlqNY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=JValCLVo8KlRAc8A4wnLgh5E2n+ezMjxSOk72gmeMkL/+6VUzdijDCMDsYDNY1AKe jQYS1mMuUdvDSb/SnDEyM8Q5Q1lhQbku+T9lambQEbUxYVITTyKMpe/ElhwQpXjWAV lm694X8siHPiUzVyUY8HIm6BVYoLgz+xCjMwmPHk= Subject: Re: [domainrep] Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:28:26 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of Tyson Macaulay > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 6:41 AM > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: [domainrep] Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? >=20 > My question to this group: has this already been done in full or in > part elsewhere for IETF? To my knowledge, no. > I reviewed draft-dskoll-reputation-reporting-04 and the other related > drafts but did not notice a detailed discussion of this nature. > (Please forgive me if I have missed something that should be obvious). We're aware of that work, but we're currently not chartered to include it. = I believe at one point we had considered it for development after the curr= ent charter completes. The current charter is only about how to ask a reputation service about som= ething and get a reply. We're so far specifically avoiding questions relat= ed to how one develops a reputation since that's often both proprietary and= context-specific. -MSK From dfs@roaringpenguin.com Mon Apr 16 07:10:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602EC21F870E for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1CBlorOa1YJP for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from colo3.roaringpenguin.com (roaringpenguin.com [70.38.112.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C1F21F8666 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (vanadium.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.23]) by colo3.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id q3GEAFHR014343 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:10:15 -0400 Received: from hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com (hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.1]) by vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id q3GEACRh008001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:10:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:10:12 -0400 From: "David F. Skoll" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Message-ID: <20120416101012.48ea64a0@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F2B7B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280F2B7B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Organization: Roaring Penguin Software Inc. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=roaringpenguin.com; h=date :from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh=63nayoDuDCBS ATTrPxmuzEcHo4Q=; b=egU0mF/vsJej+yHUXYCR/eR8YiIFjdOqbJ55i3mxYPVb zQaqYebPLm1/87nW87OiSRB185WAjYnTqElc69/u7eF4P9K/WcB5I6RRgL2cwmiM s6wo9RBo+rhe7eQDYSJRddcrWTjgSbKXAG8zBsvJ+/mJwrLAjVPkT1mI9Tm3LiU= X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 on 192.168.10.23 X-CanIt-Geo: No geolocation information available for 192.168.10.23 X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing (inherits from default) X-CanIt-Archive-Cluster: SQVyZJxqklY5buiWXYCN4T/BjiM X-CanIt-Archived-As: base/20120416 / 01GWCaf8L Subject: Re: [domainrep] Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:10:24 -0000 On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:28:13 +0000 "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tyson Macaulay > > I reviewed draft-dskoll-reputation-reporting-04 and the other > > related drafts but did not notice a detailed discussion of this > > nature. (Please forgive me if I have missed something that should > > be obvious). > We're aware of that work, but we're currently not chartered to > include it. I believe at one point we had considered it for > development after the current charter completes. The terminology is unfortunate. My draft uses the word "reporting" to mean a mechanism by which sensors report events to a reputation system that generates reputation profiles based on those events. The domainrep group uses "reporting" to mean a way for a reputation system to report reputation information to clients. The packet-staining idea is interesting, but including a URL of malicious content in an option at the network level seems wrong to me. I think it's trying to solve the problem at the wrong layer. Regards, David. From tmacaulay@2keys.ca Mon Apr 16 15:06:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E8E11E808A for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:06:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s-pAJOGpeJSz for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.2keys.ca (mail.2keys.ca [72.1.200.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C9111E807F for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59261281175 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:00:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at 2keys.ca Received: from mail.2keys.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.2keys.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xbamqvpy4XP for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.143] (unknown [192.168.2.143]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BF68280DD4 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:00:45 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:06:23 -0400 From: Tyson Macaulay To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [domainrep] Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? In-Reply-To: <20120416101012.48ea64a0@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:06:45 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: "David F. Skoll" Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:10:12 -0400 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] Informational RFC on reputation intelligence? >On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:28:13 +0000 >"Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tyson Macaulay > >> > I reviewed draft-dskoll-reputation-reporting-04 and the other >> > related drafts but did not notice a detailed discussion of this >> > nature. (Please forgive me if I have missed something that should >> > be obvious). > >> We're aware of that work, but we're currently not chartered to >> include it. I believe at one point we had considered it for >> development after the current charter completes. > >The terminology is unfortunate. My draft uses the word "reporting" to >mean a mechanism by which sensors report events to a reputation system >that generates reputation profiles based on those events. > >The domainrep group uses "reporting" to mean a way for a reputation system >to report reputation information to clients. > >The packet-staining idea is interesting, but including a URL of malicious >content in an option at the network level seems wrong to me. I think it's >trying to solve the problem at the wrong layer. Your instincts are probably rights. The URL notion was a requirement that bubbled up during initial requirements analysis and was put into the 00 draft for "reaction". Thanks for your comments. Pending further responses, I will take a run at an informational draft (in 6man) about reputation information and the its benefits as an adjunct to legacy signature-based systems. Tyson > >Regards, > >David. >