From dcrocker@gmail.com Wed Jun 6 14:05:39 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 AAEB221F8735 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:05:39 -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 UQmToyf1HL4j for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B290321F8733 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so7049188bkt.31 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:05:37 -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=znPfyn+/4bUNAaDvzxapEuRan3k034TvID0D9H444a0=; b=X09agZkmcOsNciPsIqtYBG+2rCGYwbPRXohr4yeVDCZPdOsw+9SAfab+xrDZpLCtKX YbV0mgCvPyPPJNAI0AhodE5EcecweFW1eQLnECEgcrfOhTMriw1Pwl0FgFQBlbYKIQYh mQA9DPQBAEB03QAF3dWTGhxF8VhgQp4eqa2itne5yIUnbYDwQ3oNMxBn40z/dRqzeQ1K nZP+bvZz0nLW7Nw7gEsL8R6DjnNGKUYm0PsvUC7LW9Nu0VUCp+X0MQ08V/lB9OuDEigr pnQYnrf9b/ld3xu9IRcG3W5EaQ2iAgIYQPYMLruZ8eIKpEObAMra6yZQV7m9Qcq6Vyrt vSPQ== Received: by 10.204.152.196 with SMTP id h4mr13697656bkw.131.1339016737718; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.101] (e178186242.adsl.alicedsl.de. [85.178.186.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fu14sm1286119bkc.13.2012.06.06.14.05.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FCFC61E.5070702@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:05:34 +0200 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [domainrep] No Repute wg meeting in Vancouver 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, 06 Jun 2012 21:05:40 -0000 Folks, Since there's been so little activity since the last IETF meeting, there will be no meeting of the Repute WG in Vancouver. d/ -- Dave Crocker bbiw.net From tmacaulay@2keys.ca Fri Jun 8 08:41:41 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 790C621F8960 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:41:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 ZQE1qServpk0 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.2keys.ca (unknown [72.1.200.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F183921F8944 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F73A280D14 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:24:15 -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 KBwqglkfH6V6 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.143] (unknown [192.168.2.143]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C438280CBD for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:24:11 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:33:05 -0400 From: Tyson Macaulay To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: draft-macaulay-6man-reputation-intelligence-00.txt In-Reply-To: <20120607202516.25696.10930.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [domainrep] draft-macaulay-6man-reputation-intelligence-00.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, 08 Jun 2012 15:41:41 -0000 People in this group may be interested in this new draft, which is related to the intelligence (content) that might be delivered by the REPUTE work. A new version of I-D, draft-macaulay-6man-reputation-intelligence-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Tyson Macaulay and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-macaulay-6man-reputation-intelligence Revision: 00 Title: Internet reputation intelligence: Problem Statement Creation date: 2012-05-30 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 11 Abstract: This draft represent the initial public discussion of the value of proactive, reputation intelligence on the Internet and some of the challenges associated with these services that may be partially addressed through novel use of IPv6 features and functions. This document is intended to outline the concept of Internet reputation intelligence, the benefits it brings to network elements and endpoints. This draft also addresses the challenges associated with legacy security systems based on threat-signatures, and some of the current weaknesses of reputation management systems. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-macaulay-6man-reputation-intelligence / Thanks, Tyson From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jun 15 13:56:30 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 1D76E21F85EF; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:56:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, 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 jyTMroCJo7Vk; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61E821F85DB; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:56:29 -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: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120615205629.5345.49371.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:56:29 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-model-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, 15 Jun 2012 20:56:30 -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 Model for Reputation Reporting Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein Murray S. Kucherawy Andrew Sullivan Filename : draft-ietf-repute-model-02.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2012-06-15 Abstract: This document describes a general architecture for a reputation-based service and a model for the exchange of reputation information on the Internet. The document roughly follows the recommendations of RFC4101 for describing a protocol model. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-model There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-model-02 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-model-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Jun 15 18:50:36 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 CB84E21F8533 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:50:36 -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 dYQR308WJk4z for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B890921F852C for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B91511ECB41C for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:50:24 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120616015024.GA31704@mail.yitter.info> References: <20120615205629.5345.49371.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120615205629.5345.49371.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-model-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: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:50:37 -0000 Dear colleagues, On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:56:29PM -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > Author(s) : Nathaniel Borenstein > Murray S. Kucherawy > Andrew Sullivan > Filename : draft-ietf-repute-model-02.txt We uploaded this revision to the model draft today. The draft includes changes to accomplish the following things, all of which were discussed in Paris: 1. A general editorial pass. 2. Addition of text to say that details of query parameters were to be application-specific. There was quite a bit of back and forth at the mic in Paris (thanks to the Meetecho people for an excellent recording, BTW), and it was hard for me to determine what was concluded, but since no text on this topic came to me by now I figured everyone must think this is application-specific. 3. Addition of the Privacy Consideration section. This was in response to the microphone comment about cases where reputation data ought not to be public. Things that were _not_ included: A. A general overview of the protocol, including exhaustive motivation and so on. There was some discussion of the desirability of this in Paris, but the conversation seemed to suggest this draft was not the place for it. B. A reworking of the draft to add more general-purpose mechanisms, to be recycled by specific applications. Cf. (2) above. I believe this document is ready to be parked, given the parameters I think we've been working within. I'd appreciate reviews. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From steve.allam@trustsphere.com Wed Jun 27 08:54:13 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 8482621F87BF for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.344 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255] 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 ME7pYn-gJwR4 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ob-rmv3.realmail-asp.co.uk (obgw1.realmail-asp.co.uk [80.249.100.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7064621F87BC for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:54:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=trustsphere.com; s=rmdkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=z7CBVKoSmmfvbJqlVT9B38qto3U5w36nsNbO1gL8TXk=; b=o8YAOFkMAjaLXhBGsnGo+iZfIyiIq6SpZkUhwo5i8V2sQUspAu/0ZT5YJoSK2My/YZIDX1oFNZhkrCwqGiVQttS8rsOCQC8DFk5yACkE/SEisDydComAo9IaMlrwOuriVj31/kIFp2nnSlPJ5p/0fQQ3MpCDl9HAkXkXDsfxq1k=; Received: from [116.12.149.130] (helo=cgpro.boxsentry.com) by ob-rmv3.realmail-asp.co.uk with esmtp id 1SjuZG-0007Fy-Ey for domainrep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:54:11 +0100 Received: by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.4.0) with PIPE id 2018644; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:52:24 +0800 Received: from [88.97.130.81] (account steve.allam@trustsphere.com HELO [10.1.1.35]) by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPSA id 2018643 for domainrep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:52:09 +0800 Message-ID: <4FEB2C8C.1020205@trustsphere.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:53:48 +0100 From: Steve Allam User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4F7E26F5.5080508@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7E26F5.5080508@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-LogiQ-query: 116.12.149.130/steve.allam@trustsphere.com/domainrep@ietf.org (I000 Unknown UNKNOWN.UNKNOWN ) X-RealMail-Category: UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN/ X-RealMail-Ref: UNKNOWN/str=0001.0A0B020D.4FEB2CA3.0061,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-RealMail-IWF: NO X-CTCH-SenderID: steve.allam@trustsphere.com X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Spam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Suspected: 0 Subject: [domainrep] Draft response set - further questions 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, 27 Jun 2012 15:54:13 -0000 All, Back at the Paris meeting, I promised that I would complete a draft vocab (now response set) and also some sort of primer for people thinking of implementing the standard. I regret that this has taken me longer than I had planned, but I am making good progress, and should be able to post something in a few more days. I do have some further questions, which I thought rather than direct at individuals, I would address to the list. The draft states that a reputation server using the repute framework will make available a template at a well-known location, thus on one of our servers, you would be able to find the template at: http://tsserver.com/.well-known/repute-template The template itself contains the URI-TEMPLATE for the reputation service. The issue/question I have is with the template - I was hoping that URI-TEMPLATE defines a mechanism for quite detailed templating including mandatory and optional parameters, but find that it (seems to) stop short on that. The issue I am having is that our reputation server currently supports two queries (assertions in repute speak), which require different parameters, some of which are mandatory, others are optional. In order to provide a single template which covers both queries, it is not possible to cover this nuance, as uri-template only allows for a string of optional query components. Here is an example: First query would be: http://tsserver.com/check_sender?i=1.1.1.1&s=steve@ts.com&r=joe@acme.com Second: http://tsserver.com/check_ip?i=1.1.1.1 Both have additional optional parameters. However, to represent these as a single template is not great: {scheme}://tsserver.com/{assertion}{?i,s,r} - this covers both, but gives the impression that both assertions will be happy to receive all three (optional) parameters, whereas in fact one would ignore 's' and 'r' and the other would fail if 's' and 'r' were not supplied. As I understand it, when parsing the template, the client is obliged to supply those parameters that it has available, rather than all parameters - again, there is no separation between mandatory and optional parameters. This makes the template system much less useful than it could be, and in our case, doesn't help the client. So I have two issues really: 1. How to 'split' the template to give a different response per assertion, so that the correct parameter list can be given for each, like: {scheme}://tsserver.com/check_ip{?i} {scheme}://tsserver.com/check_sender{?i,s,r} 2. How to tell the client about optional and mandatory parameters, - maybe this actually means the client implementor needs to refer to the implementation guide and not rely on the template at all, which beggers the question - why have the template?? I wondered about the validity of: {scheme}://tsserver.com/check_sender{?i,s,r}{&v,f} - to try and show that i,s, and r are mandatory and that v,f are optional - this is as NOT specified in the URI-TEMPLATE, the use of {&} is a continuation or further optional params, after a literal component, such as {?i}&app=test{&v} Comments or advice please! Regards, Steve From steve.allam@trustsphere.com Thu Jun 28 08:59:35 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 1CBC121F85AA for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.542 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.802, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 rkvMvljCO1HN for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OB2-RMV3.realmail-asp.co.uk (obgw2.realmail-asp.co.uk [80.249.107.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D9D21F85A4 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:59:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=trustsphere.com; s=rmdkim; h=Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=xKbtfyprnWVzd1AdkXpqLRYtxHYRenJPl8MDMer+f+I=; b=BFstC0D/Yxo+LDJHOHBVfJhuK06/9PaGl7fiyRJmxWodhA6CvEtTr8fbDgJxGFYqCiYNxN2p9qHmBG9K9YIexgL4mxlTwJQfragc8WBDWmKbVJgwL0BsTwGPiQ3Fwpxq7q7NMW64qIblUdaAyR+WEF3KOZCm/tcV0W3xcxzxhrw=; Received: from [116.12.149.130] (helo=cgpro.boxsentry.com) by OB2-RMV3.realmail-asp.co.uk with esmtp id 1SkH7w-0001B4-J1 for domainrep@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:59:29 +0100 Received: by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 5.4.0) with PIPE id 2020193; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:57:42 +0800 Received: from [88.97.130.81] (account steve.allam@trustsphere.com HELO [10.1.1.35]) by cgpro.boxsentry.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPSA id 2020196 for domainrep@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:57:27 +0800 Message-ID: <4FEC7F4B.9080400@trustsphere.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:59:07 +0100 From: Steve Allam User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050801090101030409010807" X-LogiQ-query: 116.12.149.130/steve.allam@trustsphere.com/domainrep@ietf.org (I000 OK UNKNOWN.EXISTS ) X-RealMail-Category: UNKNOWN/UNKNOWN/ X-RealMail-Ref: UNKNOWN/str=0001.0A0B0204.4FEC7F61.00ED,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-RealMail-IWF: NO X-CTCH-SenderID: steve.allam@trustsphere.com X-CTCH-SenderID-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Spam: 0 X-CTCH-SenderID-Total-Suspected: 0 Subject: [domainrep] Changes to the various documents - where is response set defined? 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, 28 Jun 2012 15:59:35 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050801090101030409010807 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, When examining the email-identifiers document, section 3.2 says: >The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following > OPTIONAL extensions to the basic response set defined in > [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]: If you refer back to the repute-model document, it says: > The basic information to be represented in the protocol is fairly simple, and includes the following: > o the identity of the entity providing the reputation information; > o the identity of the entity being rated; > o the overall rating score for that entity; > o the level of confidence in the accuracy of that rating; and > o the number of data points underlying that score. i.e. it doesn't really define the basic response set. That can be (better) found in the repute-media-type document. The only reference to the media-type document is: > Additional documents define a [MIME] type for reputation data, and protocols for exchanging such data. However, the five bullets above are inconsistent with this document as well - note that the bullet points suggest that a response should 'include' the following, whereas the media-type document gives four 'key pieces' of data and four 'optional': Required (key piece): - RATER (bullet 1) - ASSERTION - RATED (bullet 2) - RATING (bullet 3) Optional: - CONFIDENCE (bullet 4) - RATER-AUTHENTICITY - SAMPLE-SIZE (bullet 5) - UPDATED I feel that implementors need a clear definition of what is required and what is optional, also that the path through the documents needs to be clear - i.e. these are defned in the model document, and the media document is left to show how to represent these in the media type being defined. Regards, Steve -- * Steve Allam | Chief Technology Officer | TrustSphere * 3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore, 048693 Tel: +65 6536 5203 | Fax: +65 6536 5463 steve.allam@trustsphere.com | www.trustsphere.com --------------050801090101030409010807 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All,

When examining the email-identifiers document, section 3.2 says:

>The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following
>   OPTIONAL extensions to the basic response set defined in
>   [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL]:

If you refer back to the repute-model document, it says:

> The basic information to be represented in the protocol is fairly simple, and includes the following:
>   o  the identity of the entity providing the reputation information;
>   o  the identity of the entity being rated;
>   o  the overall rating score for that entity;
>   o  the level of confidence in the accuracy of that rating; and
>   o  the number of data points underlying that score.

i.e. it doesn't really define the basic response set.  That can be (better) found in the repute-media-type document.  The only reference to the media-type document is:

> Additional documents define a [MIME] type for reputation data, and protocols for exchanging such data.

However, the five bullets above are inconsistent with this document as well - note that the bullet points suggest that a response should 'include' the following, whereas the media-type document gives four 'key pieces' of data and four 'optional':

Required (key piece):
 - RATER (bullet 1)
 - ASSERTION
 - RATED (bullet 2)
 - RATING (bullet 3)

Optional:
 - CONFIDENCE (bullet 4)
 - RATER-AUTHENTICITY
 - SAMPLE-SIZE (bullet 5)
 - UPDATED

I feel that implementors need a clear definition of what is required and what is optional, also that the path through the documents needs to be clear - i.e. these are defned in the model document, and the media document is left to show how to represent these in the media type being defined.


Regards,

Steve


--

Steve Allam | Chief Technology Officer | TrustSphere

3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore, 048693
Tel: +65 6536 5203 | Fax: +65 6536 5463
 steve.allam@trustsphere.com | www.trustsphere.com
--------------050801090101030409010807-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jun 28 14:27:56 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 271A411E80CA; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:27:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 xsYotbfsoDYd; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138CE11E8087; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:27:52 -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: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120628212752.22944.48126.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:27:52 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04.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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:27:56 -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-04.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-06-28 Abstract: This document defines a response set for describing assertions a reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use in generating reputons. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jun 28 14:28:07 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 48ADF11E80D0; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.488 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, 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 H8jG+GoglGqc; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987F611E80CB; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:06 -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: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120628212806.22913.38370.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:06 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:28:07 -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-03.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-06-28 Abstract: This document defines a mechanism to conduct queries for reputation information using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-query-http There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-query-http-03 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-query-http-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jun 28 14:28:19 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 384AC11E80E1; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, 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 FQ-pbtT4XRbY; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC74911E80D5; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:18 -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: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120628212818.23353.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:28:18 -0700 Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:28:19 -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-03.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-06-28 Abstract: This document defines a media type for exchanging reputation information about an arbitrary class of object. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-media-type There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-media-type-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From superuser@gmail.com Thu Jun 28 14:30:48 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 CE99B11E80C6 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 F1KqPxhxZUPb for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF18311E80A4 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so3947966lbb.31 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=as99s1bQGuKqY48jYt8+6Rgi+EuhHrtOqsx1ZbRUV+k=; b=NOH8Q5+IeIEhltSSw46V7Mv63IzevtG2QiwueOFEOcGqJVJyU52al8ZpkEKg12zfc9 nHYZcEYnQ/IUAaht8B/XozOZsWZqYEykzCIzolrhD7HBALk9T/142SMMs2Bln28et3Wm Stbrq7oLgoe/tEab8Urs8iZdu+b2pPcKAU6tatnVGySaKS6oMfTv4OSseKesZG+7Cnvn VYaTsrqJymPw3w9JBMjWPQNPHvJSnEqeQRtwIeRvJEscjkllnq42hScuW9HSdnPWcNAK Y26sgY0668QD6eQYeQeRDX66681kM6rwZ//pwU6X3pCdpuo+L3nn8ubIEM8lZnqA1OQO aAtw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.83.169 with SMTP id r9mr7722lby.66.1340919046793; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:46 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401fc4374ea2704c38f0bb0 Subject: [domainrep] Documents 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:30:48 -0000 --f46d0401fc4374ea2704c38f0bb0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Some offlist conversation with a couple of people preparing registrations for their own applications showed me that the media-type document's IANA Considerations section needed some improved formatting of the template, and the email-identifiers template was missing a field. I took that opportunity to update my contact information in all three of the documents I'm currently editing. The updates have been posted. -MSK --f46d0401fc4374ea2704c38f0bb0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some offlist conversation with a couple of people preparing registrations f= or their own applications showed me that the media-type document's IANA= Considerations section needed some improved formatting of the template, an= d the email-identifiers template was missing a field.=A0 I took that opport= unity to update my contact information in all three of the documents I'= m currently editing.

The updates have been posted.

-MSK
--f46d0401fc4374ea2704c38f0bb0-- From ietf@jacobrideout.net Fri Jun 29 11:37:53 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 7A2A321F86BD for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 GuQToLoiMMNM for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jacobrideout.net (jacobrideout.net [74.50.50.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BB021F86AB for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jacobrideout.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C92140018 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:37:51 -0600 (MDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=jacobrideout.net; s=2012a; t=1340995071; bh=slLhW2bR5/oR5ifwWcqxensXNGoedXSgHTMZmG3vipc=; h=Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:From; b=EBPSrpCwRELj31ybScvdOAX27shIkpEsPHOkFcVNJfTR/Xjovyla6geYJzjYlH6ap eEF5fFsZVCYGQEoQHxy4KJiU4GqXTid1pR2smhbUAWejQm/Zr/5+/NeEN0avkwBee3 T23SC13RDayzhW8dQYLznusKryT03xN6VOXsEoSY= Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so3572272bkt.31 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.156.137 with SMTP id x9mr1573567bkw.135.1340995069295; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.224.74 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:37:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Jacob R Rideout Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:37:29 -0600 Message-ID: To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [domainrep] rDNS identifiers X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@jacobrideout.net List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:37:53 -0000 I just read draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04. Has anyone on the list considered the use of the IPv4 (or v6) PTR rDNS value as an identifier? Or more strictly, a fully qualified domain name, that also resolves to the queried IP address. I know of several filtering systems that make use of this identifier as an identity token to fix reputation. Jacob Rideout Product Manager, Anti-Spam Return Path, Inc.