From superuser@gmail.com  Wed Nov  7 20:40:49 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 12B0421F8A5C for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 20:40:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.41
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.188,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9cMPxYX+KKQt for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 20:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E2521F8A55 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 20:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so1949509lam.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:40:47 -0800 (PST)
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=H+H3AWQgeFHvvefQACQES5F817nqlkzBc8YgKAtAUzE=; b=ap4R9GA7QxfIb+vFd3WejeMO+Wa24Let1Em8fYgqryXHLD6x3nLGvxxrhEQD1Y9C7E nXnco/JWb48thKSlRUiQ6fdz0/TnIeLHUHl52roLDiPbWwHjsxbOHX/j6O+vzUY3Q4iu LPm2J7hnaR6FG2MeCVTtMP/7q3TgwKz4POR1kALFAsrn2jWp77lqZzAoEo4BczEq7ZMG UhPv5OsE5uowNTRirzVYcRuyDdqI1VwwZuVoZbeM+qQTY+qLhXlAjAVSOnuMVt+iM6Fw Psru0mBkENhgtV95+Y5TwpL+LU9mF2ZTfBn1mhQ3RTSJ0qBUfW6ox0UqT987snsE3oXh zUkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.17.40 with SMTP id l8mr2733078lbd.58.1352349646947; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.83.232 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:40:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYqiV9qDUpyUJ-0GvP0CQif-C90D3JEd0TD5HyXdGSTsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: domainrep@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401fb655187c904cdf470f4
Subject: [domainrep] Our final document
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 04:40:49 -0000

--f46d0401fb655187c904cdf470f4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Colleagues,

Despite the fairly complete attrition we appear to have suffered, we do
have one more deliverable on our milestone list that has received no
attention.  It's an "Informational document, discussing issues of data
transparency, redress, meta-reputation and other important operational
considerations."

I've uploaded such a document for those of us still paying attention to
consider to complete our tasks.  It's called
draft-kucherawy-repute-considerations.  I'd like to request that the WG
adopt it and develop it so that we can send a complete docket to the IESG,
and wrap up as the chairs see fit.

-MSK

--f46d0401fb655187c904cdf470f4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Colleagues,<br><br>Despite the fairly complete attrition we appear to have =
suffered, we do have one more deliverable on our milestone list that has re=
ceived no attention.=A0 It&#39;s an &quot;Informational document, discussin=
g issues of data transparency, redress,
 meta-reputation and other important operational considerations.&quot;<br><=
br>I&#39;ve uploaded such a document for those of us still paying attention=
 to consider to complete our tasks.=A0 It&#39;s called draft-kucherawy-repu=
te-considerations.=A0 I&#39;d like to request that the WG adopt it and deve=
lop it so that we can send a complete docket to the IESG, and wrap up as th=
e chairs see fit.<br>
<br>-MSK<br>

--f46d0401fb655187c904cdf470f4--

From johnl@iecc.com  Thu Nov  8 08:34:36 2012
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 43A6A21F8802 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 08:34:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -112.052
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-112.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WxkdeTDmpwf for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 08:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AEB21F87F5 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 08:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 5046 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2012 16:34:32 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2012 16:34:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=509bdf18.xn--30v786c.k1211; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=DkoWErgI3FLFKuUUPo7/6dY+Xt08WDeWOqIeRsxbaOs=; b=y+KVatmxLkPxXUpHEQJia/tRNyG2Hh1iagQWgmjpNABxTjpxF7nI5Kme3Z/Fn0Liyq4AgWawlpsBTrFSZuIt79O1m2y3ujK2aLNK/YDHYU27c91EGAK6DH0l27SUjwfS/Arn/wS5avbDI6m60u5yUjxMG3uICd48u/OafXZ8+iQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=509bdf18.xn--30v786c.k1211; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=DkoWErgI3FLFKuUUPo7/6dY+Xt08WDeWOqIeRsxbaOs=; b=NywcQaA8FN8To6PvK9W0ftS1uE6Xc+BA66xk5C8qtbUPHdgv3ttGpzsT9EzRZDf1NiGKyJ/y7Z9P342XV+GpUVFBaoppds/xPe5JvJjJNjyuL/wtfCB9sszXT5vdsznkomQK/lbOdtNmUDw+gPB9zS6JVKP1O6EnMBNYDh1Pptk=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: 8 Nov 2012 16:34:10 -0000
Message-ID: <20121108163410.7295.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: domainrep@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYqiV9qDUpyUJ-0GvP0CQif-C90D3JEd0TD5HyXdGSTsw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Our final document
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:34:36 -0000

>draft-kucherawy-repute-considerations.  I'd like to request that the WG
>adopt it and develop it so that we can send a complete docket to the IESG,
>and wrap up as the chairs see fit.

I've looked at it and encourage the group to adopt it.

It needs work but it's a reasonable starting point.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Thu Nov  8 08:37:48 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 9F5C821F8856 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.176
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.423,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3TLIFgyXhIWc for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C256921F8839 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 08:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUJvf29jW4Emy5Mi8FqF6/kJIYV9FQs4K@postini.com; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:37:47 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qA8Gbhbe006593 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:37:46 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:37:43 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Third-Party Denial of Service in draft-kucherawy-repute-considerations
Thread-Index: AQHNvc9gTxo2p/s9J0uzecqZFwn/uw==
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:37:43 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6AF437@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <20121108041708.3871.27096.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121108041708.3871.27096.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [domainrep] Third-Party Denial of Service in draft-kucherawy-repute-considerations
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:37:48 -0000

Murray,

I'd like to see some mention of an additional denial of service implication=
, but I'm not exactly sure of where it belongs given the current sections. =
Where do you think it would be appropriate to add text that describes a den=
ial of service risk to (for example) customers of shared hosting services w=
ho find themselves on the unhappy end of an IP address that is gaining a "b=
ad" reputation because of a bad actor that's sharing the address? It might =
help to add a section for third parties who aren't clients or servers if th=
ere are any other third-party implications or side-effects.

Scott

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Thu Nov  8 13:31:31 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 5D5DD21F8604 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:31:31 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NCWjTNWNAU+w for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB78A21F84F8 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ro8so2482274pbb.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:31:30 -0800 (PST)
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=VZkDdmIeX08t6nzpnvFfF1NfP7Whzo10ZgaQ7Pindp0=; b=huW5PAwxVRWhICk2fs1J/iifxpb6nKTxTq//jTIhnqW/ML1NXu5y0lr9efJn6Ej8Ej usfNS5Gspt/z2fl4KL3c278/c7vR0cyvi8CoGRtH/LJ9p9GzaYHRNozchvO1BS76zwvi b/dDUmZ7tNGchN5scP/iJk1ain/YL5ccZaGjrqhCVtkAZOJRQVV6s0iNomVi2ptVkxso t3dMq8J1r9YowIyXw5cFGtKbahyhDtwOjjCqLipjASEDtQeTSX5u3K6f3EDrsv95KVgb 3iF1knMkyOvvmH8goLvz7FvOFzCUEygLiZlLZY6YL4U3/sVb9TQZTDHkRYxZutaRvfT0 ODtw==
Received: by 10.68.251.130 with SMTP id zk2mr27831108pbc.19.1352410290475; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad? ([2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oj1sm16506836pbb.19.2012.11.08.13.31.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <509C24A9.7040308@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:31:21 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-model-02
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:31:31 -0000

This is a Working Group Last Call for:

    A Model for Reputation Reporting

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-model-02

Please review these documents and bring any remaining issues to the
attention of the Working Group on this list.

The working group last call ends:

    November 23, 2012.


/d
Repute WG Chair

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Thu Nov  8 13:32:53 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 6DB4D21F8B02 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:32:53 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZA4bJQ0oIqEv for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0688A21F8AF1 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ro8so2482974pbb.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:32:52 -0800 (PST)
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=oVlgoa2XAxh7NIEs2uvUtVdV1i4CgJRo2RZtuvEsgjU=; b=l8yQOA2tifcXgit5PEuMfo+RrAgDMQzfIgM8lFK/QaX8z8opru01U/WHdXlL1wdDT2 neSsAZSL1M4HKl9M3fdVdPcLjKSgyyVwP4JT83Fa6zQsmPFhKKOffyacUuT1ZX6I4+m0 ySmoXNxFQe/84Mi0KMGL7GUoQ1LnELeMR58LzPSm9fdQ04p1qbpW/QLIOK3oYkx7McOG y7S2ZJqoyYk1LG+R6i06cYhWCLqT991qqytzoxbZT/sksTLXzTX6LyHXYs34dLo4bt+z w2SzsWNol96egoSZhGe5XzVSxMnWRqZ3I1QwBEuCAOVEQJHQl+q5TMqKZl1UjSRvMqmt LmHA==
Received: by 10.69.0.134 with SMTP id ay6mr27843167pbd.50.1352410372869; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad? ([2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vs3sm16499442pbc.61.2012.11.08.13.32.51 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:32:44 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:32:53 -0000

This is a Working Group Last Call for:

    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers

    draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

Please review these documents and bring any remaining issues to the
attention of the Working Group on this list.

The working group last call ends:

    November 23, 2012.


/d
Repute WG Chair

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Thu Nov  8 13:34:20 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 AFC8921F8546 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:34:20 -0800 (PST)
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=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbNZmEPfFu+z for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA2221F85AA for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so2444663pad.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:34:20 -0800 (PST)
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=zpK0ag5w1mPF2wUCNquOBbtwizXz9Fm1x06y/cOtx/E=; b=BmV4KpRW1h+F4SLJCMacNHhd9T0p8c9Q4C1ZaJMLcGl1FWFrnBSChPHBNEe3asuyGU 3vY/yCmw+jPSxdgwq8CT3+fau9Ma72Y0GNEYNIAvR4pcGzyWv7ze39CCZmZjJfqLP0R9 N76QbHj/tq8xwabeBiA0taKFIx3bXGCYIhrhOtEmhuXsqqE6aSZ40XJ0Eb1atciL63eq A19Uy2rEZStgHd7L4W01iBo3smU3NxxKo8quGMcnvaJe+pp/wC22vg84WuPre+V2K4st d3NdhLG2XZHOvJHeCpqsdz0Jm02UvgIoeGJA051N3UaqwEBG6/b0IiK+DTyv3VLfMIkn IOrQ==
Received: by 10.66.84.163 with SMTP id a3mr19753763paz.2.1352410459993; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad? ([2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m8sm16698821pax.38.2012.11.08.13.34.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <509C2553.7080308@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:34:11 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:34:20 -0000

This is a Working Group Last Call for:

    A Media Type for Reputation Interchange

    draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03

Please review these documents and bring any remaining issues to the
attention of the Working Group on this list.

The working group last call ends:

    November 23, 2012.


/d
Repute WG Chair

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Thu Nov  8 13:35:40 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 9533B21F85AA for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:35:40 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fPVCCG2qNIlk for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2552821F8546 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h15so1446383dan.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:35:33 -0800 (PST)
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=TcDIVd/6Va5vinCwosR+Kt6uATuaXodUf/sZhRx0atY=; b=po7/hVxjrYIHchvbWL7vjk7IsSwdYoh9bmm2R5djls/J/eQaOTAOy0YfQRNNzwO9z/ 7zAIG5MXkdZZFh/MvERPY6PLCloW3vSCxL4QMgP1RcN00PGyAp7bRXKd1ZnYx9v6aVmg mb5PeAgM76GCkNazl0IYdbEsUsypptWXZjvqLKYVJNsRraP08d2KYox4DQkdQd5lMwJZ DBgqpoT3VCYkymTp6SVDD+73+CcaoiTj7wT2d8Leff6HjSvlpeu5TzVqxN5LZW3rskn+ iSmZntX8jviNB0E5JQe/XupfBYCEg9mKPjMk/joxvlLQY46LVmmsPwBFEy6KSmnLntXN Z8sQ==
Received: by 10.66.78.97 with SMTP id a1mr19753951pax.32.1352410533455; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad? ([2001:df8:0:16:f51b:819c:25de:4cad]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nd6sm16500054pbc.68.2012.11.08.13.35.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:35:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <509C259C.1070703@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:35:24 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-query-http-03
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:35:40 -0000

This is a Working Group Last Call for:

    Reputation Data Interchange using HTTP and JSON

    draft-ietf-repute-query-http-03

Please review these documents and bring any remaining issues to the
attention of the Working Group on this list.

The working group last call ends:

    November 23, 2012.


/d
Repute WG Chair

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

From superuser@gmail.com  Thu Nov  8 13:41:51 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 B5DC121F8737 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:41:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.429
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IuZzZlH8xAK6 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFB021F86D4 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2012 13:41:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so2772358lbo.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:41:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FwxTtRbMyMs1KDc77wpGwKpAmEXR+K8h9yT0PztEzGU=; b=GXYcrDG7OKjTVjuPthALsT1UThzoipuKpuc4Mlg8sHQF6Vdj5hScyUjjsTDqmoDDiF OoKFVcPdSQHeRRiCr7vGXxaZ/2jV4CZhsZnFEtjUlTaxcjDv+CIEfTUqzgvYKLyfBP7K fwC+/XVSwTNrOfEO2YR64/i07obNkDAXiw7UTBHCV9zTFk/u35q3Td6h1DZq+b6eZJn3 SxhViiG+3q52G2R/JVwP1bYBOLvZE8GCd5pe2O/J5MmdnL6WYnUILoLrSaM+2LdolL5f 8pWv8p72hgvx4VH0RZYyPLRX/foj9gYDOmRS30afXhuMWLNbmHuqijCV1so7Ry2+uClq gDMg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.102.234 with SMTP id fr10mr8947804lab.28.1352410909829; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.83.232 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:41:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6AF437@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <20121108041708.3871.27096.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6AF437@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:41:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYyHS27+8DL7QME_sNBzf=ijs6113rDFXZE+T00zc-cfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04071259deea4604ce02b384
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Third-Party Denial of Service in draft-kucherawy-repute-considerations
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:41:51 -0000

--f46d04071259deea4604ce02b384
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the suggestion.  I'll work something in on that topic.

-MSK


On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com
> wrote:

> Murray,
>
> I'd like to see some mention of an additional denial of service
> implication, but I'm not exactly sure of where it belongs given the current
> sections. Where do you think it would be appropriate to add text that
> describes a denial of service risk to (for example) customers of shared
> hosting services who find themselves on the unhappy end of an IP address
> that is gaining a "bad" reputation because of a bad actor that's sharing
> the address? It might help to add a section for third parties who aren't
> clients or servers if there are any other third-party implications or
> side-effects.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>

--f46d04071259deea4604ce02b384
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Scott,<br><br>Thanks for the suggestion.=A0 I&#39;ll work something in o=
n that topic.<br><br>-MSK<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <span d=
ir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com" target=3D"_blank=
">shollenbeck@verisign.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Murray,<br>
<br>
I&#39;d like to see some mention of an additional denial of service implica=
tion, but I&#39;m not exactly sure of where it belongs given the current se=
ctions. Where do you think it would be appropriate to add text that describ=
es a denial of service risk to (for example) customers of shared hosting se=
rvices who find themselves on the unhappy end of an IP address that is gain=
ing a &quot;bad&quot; reputation because of a bad actor that&#39;s sharing =
the address? It might help to add a section for third parties who aren&#39;=
t clients or servers if there are any other third-party implications or sid=
e-effects.<br>

<br>
Scott<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
domainrep mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:domainrep@ietf.org">domainrep@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--f46d04071259deea4604ce02b384--

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Fri Nov  9 06:28:28 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
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 2267E21F8514; Fri,  9 Nov 2012 06:28:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.57
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HIiFy0-G3VcV; Fri,  9 Nov 2012 06:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D31921F8480; Fri,  9 Nov 2012 06:28:27 -0800 (PST)
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: 4.36
Message-ID: <20121109142827.26010.81447.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:28:27 -0800
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-considerations-00.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:28:28 -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           : Operational Considerations Regarding Reputation Services
	Author(s)       : Murray S. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-repute-considerations-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2012-11-08

Abstract:
   The use of reputation systems is has become a common tool in many
   applications that seek to apply collected intelligence about traffic
   sources.  Often this is done because it is common or even expected
   operator practice.  It is therefore important to be aware of a number
   of considerations for both operators and consumers of the data.  This
   document includes a collection of the best advice available regarding
   providers and consumers of reputation data, based on experience to
   date.  Much of this is based on experience with email reputation
   systems, but the concepts are generally applicable.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-considerations

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-considerations-00


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Tue Nov 13 10:17:36 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 D806621F8660 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:17:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.206
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.393,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LzEb5VuA+RkF for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og114.obsmtp.com (exprod6og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3044521F865E for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:17:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob114.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKKOu8jWCxOwR2zMSa4yGUPnk7l78LFk@postini.com; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:17:34 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qADIHUkG005566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:17:30 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:17:30 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
Thread-Index: AQHNvfieLoNcuazrTEeis+/HyxNbw5foFsow
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:17:30 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:17:37 -0000

One comment: the list of assertions in section 3.1 doesn't include anything=
 that could be used to describe behaviors like bullying, sending threats, e=
tc. Would that type of assertion be useful? If so, suggested text:

THREATS: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling emai=
l describing threatening behavior.

Scott

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Tue Nov 13 10:22:14 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 5C4E821F8451 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.232
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.367,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0TwRXqECja8r for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og113.obsmtp.com (exprod6og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D964721F84B9 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob113.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKKPy/5xBwQ1lSI55x5t91vigo2eb0gp@postini.com; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:05 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qADILxii005706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:22:03 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:21:59 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
Thread-Index: AQHNvfieLoNcuazrTEeis+/HyxNbw5foFsowgAAEqWA=
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:21:59 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CD4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:22:14 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:18 PM
> To: domainrep@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
>=20
> One comment: the list of assertions in section 3.1 doesn't include
> anything that could be used to describe behaviors like bullying,
> sending threats, etc. Would that type of assertion be useful? If so,
> suggested text:
>=20
> THREATS: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> email describing threatening behavior.

Sorry, another comment: Section 6 of this document (Security Considerations=
) is still TBD.

Scott

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Tue Nov 13 10:22:31 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 9350421F8687 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.755
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ks5OzWNdjQ0R for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og118.obsmtp.com (exprod6og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CF421F861F for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob118.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKKP2UfJxDDk8cxg037xZYaZPGZi0FQP@postini.com; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:22:20 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qADIMGDP010816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:22:16 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:22:16 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03
Thread-Index: AQHNvfjS2gx/bI1L+0Ga2MRx/FpPpJfoGzpA
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:22:15 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CE2@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C2553.7080308@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <509C2553.7080308@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-media-type-03
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:22:31 -0000

Section 6 of this document (Security Considerations) is still TBD.

Scott

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Tue Nov 13 10:35:55 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 7A0DF21F868C for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:35:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.687
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kM7sySpL7+Z6 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og123.obsmtp.com (exprod6og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9947121F867C for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob123.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKKTCgRCPHWIAt9Hf+XTsk0Qtc45hNmp@postini.com; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:35:54 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qADIZo8s011302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:35:53 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:35:49 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-query-http-03
Thread-Index: AQHNvfkC4qBZIlI1cEaNhC8lQzRAgpfoHAQQ
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:35:49 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0D0C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C259C.1070703@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <509C259C.1070703@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-query-http-03
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:35:55 -0000

I'm sensing a pattern: Section 5 of this document (Security Considerations)=
 is still TBD.

Scott

From superuser@gmail.com  Tue Nov 13 10:59:58 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 2721121F8673 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:59:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.457
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irHNxl2F1YSm for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5515E21F866C for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so2218825lah.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:59:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jFWr1DhUepi9ykpbEyIIwMABVozZs0e3TDuB3FeSZ8Y=; b=oxwpgZ+5MSR1YxXvoqE8KukZUTFXVyyP/FOecfrNNQ1kezAE6FSHA5uVHt4BPt+Wka Nn80mEYON9uQcLP1uBfvrkXsl7kw41l4wFrxzX2q6P5m7u6vlJEnQq7q9NFG4SX7rjtp uYwXYJfrbS+ZYi71d/xk/Xch7pVOEx+/n+pfABB4vvRiDFKunsQYNEW5HExFWzk1PIBp hiUcTfPinCu/iZoxj2ybrwJBxJl/PeAHivplPtOjQcRhlsFypaSLZUqJxk4PbMXsYeg0 nKE6e299AErDuSURRAl08sGuXdMUtZ5sxrkmuxXBlBrvFQJnFIEhVKgkxh2NuxRseXxT CjKw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.40.42 with SMTP id u10mr9559184lbk.124.1352833195649; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.83.232 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:59:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CD4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CD4@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:59:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwY9HOUO-Vv0nugXoZk1SoYZ8r-Vd87g1=GJfgu19HxDVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe30f41129b704ce6506f3
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:59:58 -0000

--e0cb4efe30f41129b704ce6506f3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Sorry, yes.  I'll get that updated shortly with a new version.

-MSK


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <
shollenbeck@verisign.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:18 PM
> > To: domainrep@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
> >
> > One comment: the list of assertions in section 3.1 doesn't include
> > anything that could be used to describe behaviors like bullying,
> > sending threats, etc. Would that type of assertion be useful? If so,
> > suggested text:
> >
> > THREATS: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> > email describing threatening behavior.
>
> Sorry, another comment: Section 6 of this document (Security
> Considerations) is still TBD.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>

--e0cb4efe30f41129b704ce6506f3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry, yes.=A0 I&#39;ll get that updated shortly with a new version.<br><br=
>-MSK<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com" target=3D"_blank">shollenbeck@verisi=
gn.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">&gt; -----Original Message=
-----<br>
&gt; From: <a href=3D"mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org">domainrep-bounces@=
ietf.org</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org">domainre=
p-bounces@ietf.org</a>] On<br>
&gt; Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott<br>
&gt; Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:18 PM<br>
&gt; To: <a href=3D"mailto:domainrep@ietf.org">domainrep@ietf.org</a><br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04<=
br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; One comment: the list of assertions in section 3.1 doesn&#39;t include=
<br>
&gt; anything that could be used to describe behaviors like bullying,<br>
&gt; sending threats, etc. Would that type of assertion be useful? If so,<b=
r>
&gt; suggested text:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; THREATS: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling=
<br>
&gt; email describing threatening behavior.<br>
<br>
</div>Sorry, another comment: Section 6 of this document (Security Consider=
ations) is still TBD.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
Scott<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
domainrep mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:domainrep@ietf.org">domainrep@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--e0cb4efe30f41129b704ce6506f3--

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Tue Nov 13 18:07:13 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
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 05AC421F8802; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.476
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K8zuK3dDaq4H; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9878B21F87F1; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:12 -0800 (PST)
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: 4.36
Message-ID: <20121114020712.7536.63528.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:12 -0800
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:07:13 -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-05.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2012-11-13

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-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Tue Nov 13 18:07:27 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
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 5263D21F87F3; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.414
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5O8e42QT3u9N; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6355921F8825; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:26 -0800 (PST)
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: 4.36
Message-ID: <20121114020726.5366.24958.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:26 -0800
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-04.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:07:27 -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-04.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2012-11-13

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-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-media-type-04


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Tue Nov 13 18:07:46 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
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 00C0521F8819; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:46 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lpB1hICcnp4K; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209C121F8825; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:40 -0800 (PST)
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: 4.36
Message-ID: <20121114020740.7536.68880.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:07:40 -0800
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-model-03.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:07:46 -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-03.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2012-11-13

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-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-model-03


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Tue Nov 13 18:08:03 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
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 8D6C021F8826; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:08:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.352
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.247, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MwiePeAwwmm9; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:08:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3836521F885A; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:08:00 -0800 (PST)
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: 4.36
Message-ID: <20121114020800.20573.35932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:08:00 -0800
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-query-http-04.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:08:03 -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-04.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2012-11-13

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-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-query-http-04


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From superuser@gmail.com  Tue Nov 13 18:13:31 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 3486D21F87FF for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:13:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.461
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id msSVp4ZkndmH for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:13:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C094221F8468 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so2474669lah.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:13:27 -0800 (PST)
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=kEoI7LBEQ8VbAKPlKuy5wXIYchaTakLtep0/dc5YUvY=; b=NRofvq7lQjilE4zaP6bXNiVqoYN4cLupzVv7XXEkrvP2dYmeWeURKrdECQEfb6ct63 YFtpSsOQ+0B+mg1ds+WTy+nKisHXkB1NdB9qKVTu6CEiH/h6VlSXQHMUONtj+F77HZP9 ggCg58beKWs33KRc/ejnYD04xYJX3/EfLjjOEEvNhwR4KsxdpSvxYGS9qe7E4zvW0RxF xJAcY0U90+BmVhJQrdBoNKT4t20GGf1Jrk5KrJjho+CSecRrhDM0U2ngU9b/QSxm5zUE jFd68YhoWiO2fVEfUb1CQ5aoXqhV1l8XPD+VYpPJ0kGDRcvyby7HGDZ7eEXGJcvLsRu/ bWbA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.102.234 with SMTP id fr10mr23631536lab.28.1352859207246; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.83.232 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:13:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbpW071S7MJ5HSWGyb=HDDJq4wWwDeHy3t6e2YtEC5LeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040712597aa3d604ce6b1433
Subject: [domainrep] Drafts updated
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:13:31 -0000

--f46d040712597aa3d604ce6b1433
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I gave it some thought and I think security considerations for REPUTE can
be grouped under two headings:

1) Those that are attacks on the building blocks we're using (HTTP, URI
syntax, MIME, etc.);

2) Those that are attacks on either reputation consumers or reputation
service providers.

For (1), these issues are all well-documented in the RFCs that define those
building blocks.  For (2), we have a new document under development that is
a collection of all of that material.

Accordingly, I've made the various Security Considerations documents point
to those places, rather than copying text from various places into the
individual documents which runs the risk of sending divergent messages to
readers.

Is this acceptable?

-MSK

--f46d040712597aa3d604ce6b1433
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I gave it some thought and I think security considerations for REPUTE can b=
e grouped under two headings:<br><br>1) Those that are attacks on the build=
ing blocks we&#39;re using (HTTP, URI syntax, MIME, etc.);<br><br>2) Those =
that are attacks on either reputation consumers or reputation service provi=
ders.<br>
<br>For (1), these issues are all well-documented in the RFCs that define t=
hose building blocks.=A0 For (2), we have a new document under development =
that is a collection of all of that material.<br><br>Accordingly, I&#39;ve =
made the various Security Considerations documents point to those places, r=
ather than copying text from various places into the individual documents w=
hich runs the risk of sending divergent messages to readers.<br>
<br>Is this acceptable?<br><br>-MSK<br>

--f46d040712597aa3d604ce6b1433--

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Tue Nov 13 19:46:14 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 B0EF821F86F3 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.688
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.268,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6w2KuIFfqpXF for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E36221F866B for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so5697360pad.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q8PFBBQuVlIWQ+n6h5YVQ2WjSEcKfmK1mWcExjWtQSM=; b=E3QwGWaOZY054ru3xlf7ZzINa9pJk/OodIUeFm5j+1BpX9aTF9U3E500RtcNzQM9OC rnwc62T13u0ioUBk8tWMpC8jeWaZq/Zaop7CsYeZL+7FqtcyF9hjx1UCwU1pPOyUYooE jsbXFMoUvXdRikLg0GTnAUVYJSsBuxVs7FSU5Eg+drPEP6rrK1CDK5j9kpCdFX2cDsu8 4KBC2FgezC8xUFRtUlp0pnNJvfWGoXWYkHAqWQPN3RYC1cro+rOgvnDMgLBvGV9fqKJv smMKa3KdAsq9MM79ZF0Xk856qvyoMEDnv3JoKK8/iAsDG0z0yCIJvgMVL96uhE5euWSq EGWg==
Received: by 10.68.240.233 with SMTP id wd9mr49128243pbc.127.1352864773893; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from com.flipdogsolutions (adsl-67-127-56-94.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net. [67.127.56.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oi3sm504832pbb.1.2012.11.13.19.46.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:44:50 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:46:14 -0000

Perhaps 'personally abusive'?  Some problematic mail is not exactly threatening.  E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes everything you post or constantly calls you an asshole.


d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net

via mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

One comment: the list of assertions in section 3.1 doesn't include anything that could be used to describe behaviors like bullying, sending threats, etc. Would that type of assertion be useful? If so, suggested text:

THREATS: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling email describing threatening behavior.

Scott
_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep

From clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca  Tue Nov 13 20:58:56 2012
Return-Path: <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
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 543A121F86CC for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:58:56 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IiKeEVrZUKkw for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.mustelids.ca (unknown [174.35.130.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFB221F86D1 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:58:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.8] (otter.mustelids.ca [192.168.0.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.mustelids.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu2) with ESMTP id qAE4wkA8026168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:58:46 -0500
Message-ID: <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:58:46 -0500
From: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: domainrep@ietf.org
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:58:56 -0000

On 12-11-13 08:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Perhaps 'personally abusive'?  Some problematic mail is not exactly threatening.  E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes everything you post or constantly calls you an asshole.

Better I think:

ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
email of a personally abusive or otherwise harassing nature.

[The stereo-typical "love-sick stalker"'s emails aren't strictly
definable as "abusive" per-se in the sense of your phrase.  Harassment
most certainly.  I don't think "Harassive" is a word, and the spell
checker seems to agree ;-)]

I don't think you'd see that flag very often.  But for completeness...

From superuser@gmail.com  Tue Nov 13 22:30:47 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 E04D421F85D5 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.465
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sz8Hh-Z5URMt for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D699E21F85D3 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so73462lah.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=x+Xm6dKZCoK0Tr1I3Oj66CoqOx6MXrj2asVXYQYtQwQ=; b=ARGvII1MLOnKw38rJGTaofh0pXncPnB48FYAvpVaKuW2fhLEcLHK4tiqGKMrvWeFuY GgggYNf3+iDSw+DsSkMk81ntL1nIK/2wPCFWBb7+LxGa9G5cvFdQPkbdRQJSdvR34GpU Avy0FK+jgxxcsL/o+LkenxjvHgA2HHtF298MzIBGVinaJh1f2CSPzpf+ddNcQCQdmHSz YzTnUHDlQZYJSJVWmtG81PmYv4l3+WpQ5ZRPiUp0S8tmvKW8FoGi8ymkWAYrB/JWwzte ALfYOFEUGOET1blJMPsgtZJagXdRUWi9rPxvXpifbcvQ80Gv4k/lUOzFf72rZK98E02Y DO0w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.47.228 with SMTP id g4mr9614119lbn.21.1352874645551; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.83.232 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost> <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa2NVCW6REBxdNGKnmJio_dRBA8VXt9kG0CpTrto02HXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554ddfeac7a4c04ce6eac07
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:30:48 -0000

--bcaec554ddfeac7a4c04ce6eac07
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I typed several messages arguing that we shouldn't do this, and then talked
myself out of sending each of them.  I think that means it's a reasonable
suggestion.

I do think it's useful to include threatening conduct as an example though,
so how about compromise text:

ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
email of a personally abusive, threatening, or otherwise harassing nature.

?


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>wrote:

> On 12-11-13 08:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Perhaps 'personally abusive'?  Some problematic mail is not exactly
> threatening.  E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes everything
> you post or constantly calls you an asshole.
>
> Better I think:
>
> ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> email of a personally abusive or otherwise harassing nature.
>
> [The stereo-typical "love-sick stalker"'s emails aren't strictly
> definable as "abusive" per-se in the sense of your phrase.  Harassment
> most certainly.  I don't think "Harassive" is a word, and the spell
> checker seems to agree ;-)]
>
> I don't think you'd see that flag very often.  But for completeness...
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>

--bcaec554ddfeac7a4c04ce6eac07
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I typed several messages arguing that we shouldn&#39;t do this, and then ta=
lked myself out of sending each of them.=A0 I think that means it&#39;s a r=
easonable suggestion.<br><br>I do think it&#39;s useful to include threaten=
ing conduct as an example though, so how about compromise text:<br>
<br>ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling =
email of a personally abusive, threatening, or otherwise harassing nature.<=
br><br>?<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O=
n Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Chris Lewis <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca" target=3D"_blank">clewis+ietf@mustelid=
s.ca</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On 12-11-13 08:44 PM, Dave=
 Crocker wrote:<br>
&gt; Perhaps &#39;personally abusive&#39;? =A0Some problematic mail is not =
exactly threatening. =A0E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes ev=
erything you post or constantly calls you an asshole.<br>
<br>
</div>Better I think:<br>
<br>
ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling<br>
email of a personally abusive or otherwise harassing nature.<br>
<br>
[The stereo-typical &quot;love-sick stalker&quot;&#39;s emails aren&#39;t s=
trictly<br>
definable as &quot;abusive&quot; per-se in the sense of your phrase. =A0Har=
assment<br>
most certainly. =A0I don&#39;t think &quot;Harassive&quot; is a word, and t=
he spell<br>
checker seems to agree ;-)]<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t think you&#39;d see that flag very often. =A0But for completene=
ss...<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">___________________________________=
____________<br>
domainrep mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:domainrep@ietf.org">domainrep@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--bcaec554ddfeac7a4c04ce6eac07--

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Tue Nov 13 22:36:44 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 ECB9C21F85DB for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:36:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.713
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.713 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aKntB8TgtzcO for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:36:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27BF21F85D5 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:36:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so85116pad.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:36:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=R5KPYQ+hgrwz7ygXLU4jWMmPSALJl/rSIPvjmkxYTbs=; b=KkiPKh3PBjGA0QKMBAExapSxxPst66gaQvd0hAgnfFmdnvx7Yoledv7hoyaOkHT3RB SJ6E3uscJbz+ytiFhKCk8B+0u6kXtyTIGpNc5AWxuK04mKIyuCkEC3uyu9JRVwrj9G6L yWzVcLt2r85///W5mqibV+9u6PvBB7w5xpcXtT6/PFHqwKZBT9Ze18Q7xYxOjtOCJKbp st2bvLhekTofh8hhPJrDgIqYrOIXKwdCU/iFENZRQsvlznv77AaX7cCnpYq9I5hQd5zB WtaytQbm8oUAx1qVTXnNxa1vrbGy2Z9LrQOhApz82zwjNqbMp+leYEmnb9ju0ftpINKb 3YVw==
Received: by 10.66.85.10 with SMTP id d10mr3775507paz.52.1352875002221; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:36:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from com.flipdogsolutions (adsl-67-127-56-94.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net. [67.127.56.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ok3sm7252729pbb.11.2012.11.13.22.36.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:36:36 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
Message-ID: <be8950b1-ea32-4a58-8bdd-2842c211c22b.maildroid@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa2NVCW6REBxdNGKnmJio_dRBA8VXt9kG0CpTrto02HXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost> <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca> <CAL0qLwa2NVCW6REBxdNGKnmJio_dRBA8VXt9kG0CpTrto02HXA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:36:44 -0000

Wfm. 


d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net

via mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

I typed several messages arguing that we shouldn't do this, and then talked
myself out of sending each of them.  I think that means it's a reasonable
suggestion.

I do think it's useful to include threatening conduct as an example though,
so how about compromise text:

ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
email of a personally abusive, threatening, or otherwise harassing nature.

?


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>wrote:

> On 12-11-13 08:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Perhaps 'personally abusive'?  Some problematic mail is not exactly
> threatening.  E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes everything
> you post or constantly calls you an asshole.
>
> Better I think:
>
> ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> email of a personally abusive or otherwise harassing nature.
>
> [The stereo-typical "love-sick stalker"'s emails aren't strictly
> definable as "abusive" per-se in the sense of your phrase.  Harassment
> most certainly.  I don't think "Harassive" is a word, and the spell
> checker seems to agree ;-)]
>
> I don't think you'd see that flag very often.  But for completeness...
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>

From clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca  Tue Nov 13 22:44:04 2012
Return-Path: <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
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 B32E121F8769 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:44:04 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pa3wSWnsz7Al for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.mustelids.ca (unknown [174.35.130.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CB321F8758 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.8] (otter.mustelids.ca [192.168.0.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.mustelids.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu2) with ESMTP id qAE6hsDr005862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:43:56 -0500
Message-ID: <50A33DAA.9090805@mustelids.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:43:54 -0500
From: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost> <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca> <CAL0qLwa2NVCW6REBxdNGKnmJio_dRBA8VXt9kG0CpTrto02HXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa2NVCW6REBxdNGKnmJio_dRBA8VXt9kG0CpTrto02HXA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:44:04 -0000

On 12-11-14 01:30 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I typed several messages arguing that we shouldn't do this, and then
> talked myself out of sending each of them.  I think that means it's a
> reasonable suggestion.
> 
> I do think it's useful to include threatening conduct as an example
> though, so how about compromise text:
> 
> ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> email of a personally abusive, threatening, or otherwise harassing nature.
> 
> ?

I'm good with that.  As long as we don't have to include 15 more
examples in that sentence ;-)


From peter@denic.de  Tue Nov 13 23:42:33 2012
Return-Path: <peter@denic.de>
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 C65C321F87AC for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:42:33 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FUjQFyw4xvEI for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from office.denic.de (office.denic.de [IPv6:2a02:568:122:16:1::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2324021F8798 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.17]) by office.denic.de with esmtp   id 1TYXc1-00072p-06; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:42:17 +0100
Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local  id 1TYXc0-0003vE-ST; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:42:16 +0100
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:42:16 +0100
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: domainrep@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: Peter Koch <peter@denic.de>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC:  draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:42:33 -0000

On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:

> This is a Working Group Last Call for:
> 
>    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
> 
>    draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

I have read version -05 of the document.  I am neither voicing support
nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with
IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA
registry is opened and no policy defined.

Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.

The registration template says "Evaluates DNS domain names found in email"
but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)
and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually
at user level.

draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has
a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.

-Peter

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Wed Nov 14 03:57:45 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 1926E21F85CC for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:57:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.627
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uEn5-tLeDWJD for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:57:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og122.obsmtp.com (exprod6og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.238]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A3021F8546 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob122.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKOHMraODrfmrkRgHVcCZAokdZoAxFpU@postini.com; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:57:44 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qAEBvZPD024544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:57:35 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:57:35 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
Thread-Index: AQHNwjGXkoBmst2hW0OBDyM/nTV3mZfpNDgAgAAFzJA=
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:57:34 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1073@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost> <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca> <CAL0qLwa2NVCW6REBxdNGKnmJio_dRBA8VXt9kG0CpTrto02HXA@mail.gmail.com> <be8950b1-ea32-4a58-8bdd-2842c211c22b.maildroid@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <be8950b1-ea32-4a58-8bdd-2842c211c22b.maildroid@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:57:45 -0000

Same here.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:37 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy; Chris Lewis
> Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
>=20
> Wfm.
>=20
>=20
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> bbiw.net
>=20
> via mobile
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
> To: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
> Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
>=20
> I typed several messages arguing that we shouldn't do this, and then
> talked myself out of sending each of them.  I think that means it's a
> reasonable suggestion.
>=20
> I do think it's useful to include threatening conduct as an example
> though, so how about compromise text:
>=20
> ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> email of a personally abusive, threatening, or otherwise harassing
> nature.
>=20
> ?
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Chris Lewis
> <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>wrote:
>=20
> > On 12-11-13 08:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Perhaps 'personally abusive'?  Some problematic mail is not exactly
> > threatening.  E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes
> > everything you post or constantly calls you an asshole.
> >
> > Better I think:
> >
> > ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or
> handling
> > email of a personally abusive or otherwise harassing nature.
> >
> > [The stereo-typical "love-sick stalker"'s emails aren't strictly
> > definable as "abusive" per-se in the sense of your phrase.
> Harassment
> > most certainly.  I don't think "Harassive" is a word, and the spell
> > checker seems to agree ;-)]
> >
> > I don't think you'd see that flag very often.  But for
> completeness...
> > _______________________________________________
> > domainrep mailing list
> > domainrep@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
> >
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Wed Nov 14 03:59:50 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 3F5C921F883C for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:59:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.072
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.526,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UViBv2HbSLqg for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8F421F85CC for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKOHszjrtbadFyTQnieWaGxWlHlckelJ@postini.com; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:59:48 PST
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qAEBxkXU024614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:59:46 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:59:46 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] Drafts updated
Thread-Index: AQHNwg2p9kYBUIng/UWlYGJxmzXmopfpOsLw
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:59:45 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B109C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbpW071S7MJ5HSWGyb=HDDJq4wWwDeHy3t6e2YtEC5LeA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbpW071S7MJ5HSWGyb=HDDJq4wWwDeHy3t6e2YtEC5LeA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B109CBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Drafts updated
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:59:50 -0000

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B109CBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, I like the approach. I plan on doing the same basic thing in the WEIRD=
S documents that have the same dependencies.

Scott

From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh=
alf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:13 PM
To: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] Drafts updated

I gave it some thought and I think security considerations for REPUTE can b=
e grouped under two headings:

1) Those that are attacks on the building blocks we're using (HTTP, URI syn=
tax, MIME, etc.);

2) Those that are attacks on either reputation consumers or reputation serv=
ice providers.

For (1), these issues are all well-documented in the RFCs that define those=
 building blocks.  For (2), we have a new document under development that i=
s a collection of all of that material.

Accordingly, I've made the various Security Considerations documents point =
to those places, rather than copying text from various places into the indi=
vidual documents which runs the risk of sending divergent messages to reade=
rs.

Is this acceptable?

-MSK

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B109CBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Yes, I like the approach.=
 I plan on doing the same basic thing in the WEIRDS documents that have the=
 same dependencies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></=
p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> domainre=
p-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Murray S. Kucherawy<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> domainrep@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [domainrep] Drafts updated<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I gave it some thought and I think security consider=
ations for REPUTE can be grouped under two headings:<br>
<br>
1) Those that are attacks on the building blocks we're using (HTTP, URI syn=
tax, MIME, etc.);<br>
<br>
2) Those that are attacks on either reputation consumers or reputation serv=
ice providers.<br>
<br>
For (1), these issues are all well-documented in the RFCs that define those=
 building blocks.&nbsp; For (2), we have a new document under development t=
hat is a collection of all of that material.<br>
<br>
Accordingly, I've made the various Security Considerations documents point =
to those places, rather than copying text from various places into the indi=
vidual documents which runs the risk of sending divergent messages to reade=
rs.<br>
<br>
Is this acceptable?<br>
<br>
-MSK<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B109CBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_--

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Wed Nov 14 06:18:00 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 BA7C221F85AB for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:17:59 -0800 (PST)
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=0.223,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fl9tjciPd67z for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507BC21F8528 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id uo1so405154pbc.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:17:59 -0800 (PST)
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=aKcSc2FBuOPqLYBJBKQ3/DxIOMb45xgDtPRNylpIe2s=; b=XqfJrknuZBtPNATmD9n1OVKDvfuIM5K5FHtNbhkEbI3m3d6hx4ammmwDgA2tB/UOPs LAoUXrUQt4ASVghM6Na9ZcOTvHW7RXnxPYdJF5eXV1WUE6NyBMp5Wt7jeCS05Uqu5aAV 5+bvB+u/VkDiMiGpGP401kVDpNvzJiqs/hUOYuflHB/XvRI6LHAEVr6JO4aREsc/oLLn dR9Pymu0v8Y8wrHUSvupAAVfJBbsdSRWxsW/rsMrxxGeXBJ4NwZ85y2NXV6qM+NCFclb Eg5aos98YZznUVNXmGsoe+w+Kw4bmBHHsVAb7KD601XA3IrSIKwHNKbHQG6siYwSYJJ8 NIxQ==
Received: by 10.68.252.133 with SMTP id zs5mr78217266pbc.152.1352902679140; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-56-94.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net. [67.127.56.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id yi9sm7801691pbc.39.2012.11.14.06.17.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50A3A80E.1000902@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:17:50 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbpW071S7MJ5HSWGyb=HDDJq4wWwDeHy3t6e2YtEC5LeA@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B109C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B109C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Drafts updated
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:18:00 -0000

On 11/14/2012 3:59 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Yes, I like the approach. I plan on doing the same basic thing in the
> WEIRDS documents that have the same dependencies.
>
> Scott
>
> *From:*domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org]
...
> I gave it some thought and I think security considerations for REPUTE
> can be grouped under two headings:


Yeah.

We ran into this distinction for DKIM.  I assume it is generic to /any/ 
security mechanism spec.  And yes, the threats should be segmented 
according to these two broad categories.

d/.

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

From superuser@gmail.com  Wed Nov 14 14:37:08 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 7C73E21F84F9 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.469
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SjP-rzlzrXK5 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445F921F8847 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so905996lbk.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4CWkU5Hwi6mginJbwKfhYzKCEnfuQpp8Xelms6QGZmI=; b=qYaBJqXGCFrPHS+eut2S1paWDJe1x2Uy2a65Tg+5MUw4XDvqusZesIlLeTqRF9HcQ0 sYZ+3bF/s0oL3JIHuRTB0k1Yrqr4C4UHfhypkJGTdeCQGe5uIh4OLP+Yduj/WiMUFML7 rMhoL6dwqTETob7NeDiwffLj0dCd5mN0g1HzhcdoS/6vfFhzTE9LOF73zUvydMbdNs6T MtzHMkszDCFP25MG3GK4N9goOsoQULCsHY6VNXbMovH9SpVhGSrcAzZWmWSRSoefl+MW YzNnTZWXTpsTjYhaoB7IrRNmFn7OmFAIK+KivkhPeYP4JRif8JeSnK8CfKvvyWfp43PP 2tUA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.54.40 with SMTP id g8mr11547268lbp.49.1352932621815; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.234 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:37:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Peter Koch <pk@denic.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec55555565412ae04ce7c2c52
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:37:08 -0000

--bcaec55555565412ae04ce7c2c52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Quite right, the registry definition moved to the "media-type" document.
Updated in the working copy.

I had somehow reached the conclusion that key matching in JSON was
case-insensitive.  I've adjusted them all to be all-uppercase, though going
to all-lowercase would be fine too.  Please let me know if there's
convention or preference to be observed here.

I've updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses are
also covered by the application.  Which text are you talking about with
respect to user level application?

RFC4408 being Experimental isn't a problem now because (a) it's already in
the downref registry, and (b) there's a Proposed Standard coming out of the
spfbis working group, so we have the option of going either way.  I'd be
fine pointing at the impending PS and just waiting for it.

-MSK


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > This is a Working Group Last Call for:
> >
> >    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
> >
> >    draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
>
> I have read version -05 of the document.  I am neither voicing support
> nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with
> IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA
> registry is opened and no policy defined.
>
> Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.
>
> The registration template says "Evaluates DNS domain names found in email"
> but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)
> and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually
> at user level.
>
> draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has
> a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.
>
> -Peter
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>

--bcaec55555565412ae04ce7c2c52
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Quite right, the registry definition moved to the &quot;media-type&quot; do=
cument.=A0 Updated in the working copy.<br><br>I had somehow reached the co=
nclusion that key matching in JSON was case-insensitive.=A0 I&#39;ve adjust=
ed them all to be all-uppercase, though going to all-lowercase would be fin=
e too.=A0 Please let me know if there&#39;s convention or preference to be =
observed here.<br>
<br>I&#39;ve updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses=
 are also covered by the application.=A0 Which text are you talking about w=
ith respect to user level application?<br><br>RFC4408 being Experimental is=
n&#39;t a problem now because (a) it&#39;s already in the downref registry,=
 and (b) there&#39;s a Proposed Standard coming out of the spfbis working g=
roup, so we have the option of going either way.=A0 I&#39;d be fine pointin=
g at the impending PS and just waiting for it.<br>
<br>-MSK<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O=
n Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:pk@denic.de" target=3D"_blank">pk@denic.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wr=
ote:<br>
<br>
&gt; This is a Working Group Last Call for:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04<br>
<br>
</div>I have read version -05 of the document. =A0I am neither voicing supp=
ort<br>
nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with<=
br>
IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA<br>
registry is opened and no policy defined.<br>
<br>
Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.<br>
<br>
The registration template says &quot;Evaluates DNS domain names found in em=
ail&quot;<br>
but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)<=
br>
and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually<br>
at user level.<br>
<br>
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has<br>
a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
-Peter<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">_____________________=
__________________________<br>
domainrep mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:domainrep@ietf.org">domainrep@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--bcaec55555565412ae04ce7c2c52--

From superuser@gmail.com  Wed Nov 14 16:26:07 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 4AA0C21F85FF for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:26:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.454
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rHnVcTI0SMLy for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FC621F85EB for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so903465lah.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:26:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7tzF+RLHI8+uSWPMJsUvIQCI+2hCWzDebkPsJJlCacI=; b=drueZtf5i8RVjr9B1B0H/JltiQrryGif9hBk5l1jSxmc1rHml7I/vagHUGhpDZOWJ6 qCWn39EFEQDUxnVDYnX1amD31NYe/L6+h0ARR0tIkOqlkf0OXIB9Df8RCxKkKmTrlOFX jIzGf5QMLowHxQjui2aHYEqTT2gqCG3F5taPrCLRR+j+RZTCzeSvJ+CYxS9ICus/34yA 9EPMM4yqPJ/zk/+3DliZX7UHy1qK7fKZQrNPEpF6v/pVCdZgaGgSP1xpu65Oy3toXzNk cN0g7YEvERzKlitZUaOUiFtOiiULlG6PfgorHAvgKYly603Gpkcjtw5835KsfRHiE68N yGzQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.42.34 with SMTP id k2mr3910772lbl.26.1352939164941; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.234 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:26:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:26:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Peter Koch <pk@denic.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b390f7dae543ff404ce7db22d
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:26:07 -0000

--485b390f7dae543ff404ce7db22d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Actually, now that I've implemented the all-uppercase change in code, I
hate it.  I think we should go to all-lowercase.  Unless there are
objections, I'll make that change in the next version of the draft.



On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>wrote:

> Quite right, the registry definition moved to the "media-type" document.
> Updated in the working copy.
>
> I had somehow reached the conclusion that key matching in JSON was
> case-insensitive.  I've adjusted them all to be all-uppercase, though going
> to all-lowercase would be fine too.  Please let me know if there's
> convention or preference to be observed here.
>
> I've updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses are
> also covered by the application.  Which text are you talking about with
> respect to user level application?
>
> RFC4408 being Experimental isn't a problem now because (a) it's already in
> the downref registry, and (b) there's a Proposed Standard coming out of the
> spfbis working group, so we have the option of going either way.  I'd be
> fine pointing at the impending PS and just waiting for it.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>> > This is a Working Group Last Call for:
>> >
>> >    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
>> >
>> >    draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
>>
>> I have read version -05 of the document.  I am neither voicing support
>> nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with
>> IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA
>> registry is opened and no policy defined.
>>
>> Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.
>>
>> The registration template says "Evaluates DNS domain names found in email"
>> but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)
>> and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually
>> at user level.
>>
>> draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has
>> a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.
>>
>> -Peter
>> _______________________________________________
>> domainrep mailing list
>> domainrep@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>>
>
>

--485b390f7dae543ff404ce7db22d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, now that I&#39;ve implemented the all-uppercase change in code, I=
 hate it.=A0 I think we should go to all-lowercase.=A0 Unless there are obj=
ections, I&#39;ll make that change in the next version of the draft.<br><br=
>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 1=
4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:superuser@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">superuser@gmail.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Quite right, the registry definition moved t=
o the &quot;media-type&quot; document.=A0 Updated in the working copy.<br><=
br>
I had somehow reached the conclusion that key matching in JSON was case-ins=
ensitive.=A0 I&#39;ve adjusted them all to be all-uppercase, though going t=
o all-lowercase would be fine too.=A0 Please let me know if there&#39;s con=
vention or preference to be observed here.<br>

<br>I&#39;ve updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses=
 are also covered by the application.=A0 Which text are you talking about w=
ith respect to user level application?<br><br>RFC4408 being Experimental is=
n&#39;t a problem now because (a) it&#39;s already in the downref registry,=
 and (b) there&#39;s a Proposed Standard coming out of the spfbis working g=
roup, so we have the option of going either way.=A0 I&#39;d be fine pointin=
g at the impending PS and just waiting for it.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font =
color=3D"#888888"><br>

<br>-MSK</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 a=
t 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pk@denic.de"=
 target=3D"_blank">pk@denic.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; This is a Working Group Last Call for:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; =A0 =A0draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04<br>
<br>
</div>I have read version -05 of the document. =A0I am neither voicing supp=
ort<br>
nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with<=
br>
IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA<br>
registry is opened and no policy defined.<br>
<br>
Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.<br>
<br>
The registration template says &quot;Evaluates DNS domain names found in em=
ail&quot;<br>
but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)<=
br>
and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually<br>
at user level.<br>
<br>
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has<br>
a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
-Peter<br>
</font></span><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
domainrep mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:domainrep@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">domainrep@ietf.org<=
/a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--485b390f7dae543ff404ce7db22d--

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Thu Nov 15 04:07:14 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 511D321F859D for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBDD4wQVMtpl for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F2121F8525 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKTa7YxaooH76Td3yaNTfr2M+EtQx7TG@postini.com; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:11 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.206]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qAFC760C018869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:07:06 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:07:06 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
Thread-Index: AQHNwriXwEKgaGnnokqwDdRKz+u4PpfqXfgAgABunZA=
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:07:05 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EEBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:07:14 -0000

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EEBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Murray, I haven't been able to find anything that describes a requirement f=
or either upper or lower case. The grammar in ECMA-262 allows both, so key =
matching is (as you noted) case-insensitive. FWIW Google's JSON style guide=
 suggests "camel-cased, ascii strings". It's perfectly acceptable to adopt =
a lower-case convention and use it consistently.

Scott

From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh=
alf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:26 PM
To: Peter Koch
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

Actually, now that I've implemented the all-uppercase change in code, I hat=
e it.  I think we should go to all-lowercase.  Unless there are objections,=
 I'll make that change in the next version of the draft.

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com<m=
ailto:superuser@gmail.com>> wrote:
Quite right, the registry definition moved to the "media-type" document.  U=
pdated in the working copy.

I had somehow reached the conclusion that key matching in JSON was case-ins=
ensitive.  I've adjusted them all to be all-uppercase, though going to all-=
lowercase would be fine too.  Please let me know if there's convention or p=
reference to be observed here.

I've updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses are als=
o covered by the application.  Which text are you talking about with respec=
t to user level application?

RFC4408 being Experimental isn't a problem now because (a) it's already in =
the downref registry, and (b) there's a Proposed Standard coming out of the=
 spfbis working group, so we have the option of going either way.  I'd be f=
ine pointing at the impending PS and just waiting for it.

-MSK


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de<mailto:pk@denic.d=
e>> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:

> This is a Working Group Last Call for:
>
>    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
>
>    draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
I have read version -05 of the document.  I am neither voicing support
nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with
IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA
registry is opened and no policy defined.

Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.

The registration template says "Evaluates DNS domain names found in email"
but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)
and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually
at user level.

draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has
a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.

-Peter
_______________________________________________
domainrep mailing list
domainrep@ietf.org<mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep



--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EEBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
	{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Murray, I haven&#8217;t b=
een able to find anything that describes a requirement for either upper or =
lower case. The grammar in ECMA-262 allows both, so key matching
 is (as you noted) case-insensitive. FWIW Google&#8217;s JSON style guide s=
uggests &#8220;camel-cased, ascii strings&#8221;. It&#8217;s perfectly acce=
ptable to adopt a lower-case convention and use it consistently.<o:p></o:p>=
</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></=
p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> domainre=
p-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Murray S. Kucherawy<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Koch<br>
<b>Cc:</b> domainrep@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-0=
4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">Actually, now that I'=
ve implemented the all-uppercase change in code, I hate it.&nbsp; I think w=
e should go to all-lowercase.&nbsp; Unless there are objections, I'll make =
that change in the next version of the draft.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:superuser@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">superuser@gma=
il.com</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Quite right, the registry definition moved to the &q=
uot;media-type&quot; document.&nbsp; Updated in the working copy.<br>
<br>
I had somehow reached the conclusion that key matching in JSON was case-ins=
ensitive.&nbsp; I've adjusted them all to be all-uppercase, though going to=
 all-lowercase would be fine too.&nbsp; Please let me know if there's conve=
ntion or preference to be observed here.<br>
<br>
I've updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses are als=
o covered by the application.&nbsp; Which text are you talking about with r=
espect to user level application?<br>
<br>
RFC4408 being Experimental isn't a problem now because (a) it's already in =
the downref registry, and (b) there's a Proposed Standard coming out of the=
 spfbis working group, so we have the option of going either way.&nbsp; I'd=
 be fine pointing at the impending PS
 and just waiting for it.<span style=3D"color:#888888"><br>
<br>
<span class=3D"hoenzb">-MSK</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:pk@denic.de" target=3D"_blank">pk@denic.de</a>&gt; wrote:<o:=
p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 =
at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; This is a Working Group Last Call for:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I have read version -05 of the document. &nbsp;I am =
neither voicing support<br>
nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with<=
br>
IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA<br>
registry is opened and no policy defined.<br>
<br>
Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.<br>
<br>
The registration template says &quot;Evaluates DNS domain names found in em=
ail&quot;<br>
but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)<=
br>
and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually<br>
at user level.<br>
<br>
draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has<br>
a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.<br>
<span style=3D"color:#888888"><br>
-Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
domainrep mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:domainrep@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">domainrep@ietf.org<=
/a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EEBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_--

From superuser@gmail.com  Thu Nov 15 10:41:33 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 9430E21F8623 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.464
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z-Vprbfazqgq for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F4F21F8522 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so1588336lah.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=peooqeqikhGnf3hAMW9M3wWtFKiqAT78pDFhtvgjvKw=; b=VAz0wMvtrZRG5GJbvXex16W0ja0Zsefg8aY36DIly8Re/Cozy6Mv8rkFvvnbwvUPXp O928LobdT3jX5ZNeBzOumlz5CX+X1sRzw3qHY+pX1YBgumhqqeb654qumgAN6mD+Bfau g4/ssPonZXWUkT6VzuU46mV6erMWrq2L9lpk9PKuXQbX+e8h6TMBjsmaulW8IVerZ2yn 4p+EfRiBcvr3dTwBekTfMwcuZcmrNnbgXed4RJSIt/gaIX08LHiy7+7cj+U1imaUowbF +lJybZKkTs3jdsDL4+cbeCZrnTxd6C6BCaRuQprZ9rQll6To5ENUBygEyB7O/vBbkkdZ uZNA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.106.212 with SMTP id gw20mr1984883lab.8.1353004891559; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.234 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0420a695f0d50c04ce8cff0c
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:41:33 -0000

--f46d0420a695f0d50c04ce8cff0c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Scott,

My own reading (RFC4627) is that the key in a JSON object is Unicode, but
it says nothing about case sensitivity.  Unless there are aspects of
Unicode I don't understand (quite possible), I imagine then it's up to the
application to decide (and specify) whether key searches within an object
are case-sensitive.

The working copies of our drafts all use lowercase now, so at least they're
consistent.  The question before us, then, is whether we need to say we
expect matching to be case-sensitive, since RFC4627 is (perhaps
deliberately) ambiguous.

-MSK

--f46d0420a695f0d50c04ce8cff0c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott,<br><br>My own reading (RFC4627) is that the key in a JSON object is =
Unicode, but it says nothing about case sensitivity.=A0 Unless there are as=
pects of Unicode I don&#39;t understand (quite possible), I imagine then it=
&#39;s up to the application to decide (and specify) whether key searches w=
ithin an object are case-sensitive.<br>
<br>The working copies of our drafts all use lowercase now, so at least the=
y&#39;re consistent.=A0 The question before us, then, is whether we need to=
 say we expect matching to be case-sensitive, since RFC4627 is (perhaps del=
iberately) ambiguous.<br>
<br>-MSK<br>

--f46d0420a695f0d50c04ce8cff0c--

From shollenbeck@verisign.com  Thu Nov 15 10:47:44 2012
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
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 3775B21F8947 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.122
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.476,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4m1s3aa46Owe for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og117.obsmtp.com (exprod6og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6184E21F8945 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob117.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKU4zLIRMEvMCn0p6CHvy1SN6DHH/X2+@postini.com; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:47:42 PST
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qAFIlbdD032464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:47:37 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:47:37 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
Thread-Index: AQHNw2DXip6TzyATVkig3JGUKj/VFJfrOzrw
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:47:37 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1BF9@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1BF9BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:47:44 -0000

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1BF9BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In the absence of guidance to the contrary I think it's safe to pick a conv=
ention and document it. As noted earlier, I can't find anything in the refe=
rences that addresses key case, either.

Scott

From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:42 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

Scott,

My own reading (RFC4627) is that the key in a JSON object is Unicode, but i=
t says nothing about case sensitivity.  Unless there are aspects of Unicode=
 I don't understand (quite possible), I imagine then it's up to the applica=
tion to decide (and specify) whether key searches within an object are case=
-sensitive.

The working copies of our drafts all use lowercase now, so at least they're=
 consistent.  The question before us, then, is whether we need to say we ex=
pect matching to be case-sensitive, since RFC4627 is (perhaps deliberately)=
 ambiguous.

-MSK

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1BF9BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">In the absence of guidanc=
e to the contrary I think it&#8217;s safe to pick a convention and document=
 it. As noted earlier, I can&#8217;t find anything in the references
 that addresses key case, either.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></=
p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Ca=
libri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><=
/p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot=
;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> Murray S=
. Kucherawy [mailto:superuser@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Hollenbeck, Scott<br>
<b>Cc:</b> domainrep@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-0=
4<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Scott,<br>
<br>
My own reading (RFC4627) is that the key in a JSON object is Unicode, but i=
t says nothing about case sensitivity.&nbsp; Unless there are aspects of Un=
icode I don't understand (quite possible), I imagine then it's up to the ap=
plication to decide (and specify) whether
 key searches within an object are case-sensitive.<br>
<br>
The working copies of our drafts all use lowercase now, so at least they're=
 consistent.&nbsp; The question before us, then, is whether we need to say =
we expect matching to be case-sensitive, since RFC4627 is (perhaps delibera=
tely) ambiguous.<br>
<br>
-MSK<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B1BF9BRN1WNEXMBX01vc_--

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Thu Nov 15 10:48:40 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 4F73F21F85C3 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:48:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yrKKgFJOo9Nu for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35ACA21F869A for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id uo1so1368680pbc.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:48:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type; bh=x/b8Upbw70wknQA1TF8YUsvrgAnjwA8HL7VN/cFdxT0=; b=FvNVpDcmrvMMsTerLmz2c5VRKJB8uEzM7PkGfN2PejRLizrahMr/Iu+jhCn6xB/Zc2 94FAEZm5spMa5KCsdn77rMgIiyrZvwa3h/jS64KFr8i1UzZx/Sjh5PzdHR5iSeMoDA8Y q2wju8FZg3SPk9zEdL62/IvypIChul9ozz9kdMLOZQ1T7+D+9g6u5+f5waO5wyIxPhUY ZXi5eBKAKI+U7OXm9Zah0LikrzZjrrt4TgJN4x19nxeowmDREpeWSxcLcU7ar7258YOI 2QCTa+WRR33UUZVx7nIrU/aNdr8mCVuKsW/r+OW6oyE5LbniFOAqlQ2J5DMzSBkkb2N9 u/UQ==
Received: by 10.66.86.42 with SMTP id m10mr5900681paz.3.1353005313952; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from com.flipdogsolutions ([69.199.196.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rk17sm9896260pbb.3.2012.11.15.10.48.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:48:28 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Message-ID: <3365326f-3d95-4581-b7a1-d943832f25d3.maildroid@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;  boundary="----=_Part_0_1097330256.1353005308966"
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:48:40 -0000

------=_Part_0_1097330256.1353005308966
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


imo case insensitivity is to be explicitly preferred always.  case sensitivity should apply only when unavoidable.
 
d/
--
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

  via mobile


------=_Part_0_1097330256.1353005308966
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p><br>
imo case insensitivity is to be explicitly preferred always.&nbsp; case sen=
sitivity should apply only when unavoidable.<br>
<p>&#160;<br>
d/<br>
--<br>
&#160; Dave Crocker<br>
&#160; Brandenburg InternetWorking<br>
<a href=3D"http://=C2=A0=C2=A0bbiw.net">&#160;&#160;bbiw.net</a></p>
<p>&#160;&#160;via mobile</p>
</p>

------=_Part_0_1097330256.1353005308966--

From dfs@roaringpenguin.com  Thu Nov 15 11:20:55 2012
Return-Path: <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
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 368B921F85E3 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:20:55 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xyc6AF3la8eI for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo3.roaringpenguin.com (www.ipv6.roaringpenguin.com [IPv6:2607:f748:1200:fb:70:38:112:54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CA921F841D for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:20:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vanadium.roaringpenguin.com ([192.168.10.23]) by colo3.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id qAFJKjC7023475; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:20:45 -0500
Received: from hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com (dfs@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.1]) by vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id qAFJKinp003872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:20:44 -0500
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:20:44 -0500
From: "David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20121115142044.61478035@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Roaring Penguin Software Inc.
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-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:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=main; bh=XLzYAIy71YQfAw/+6zIx6vkj4vs=; b=E638sj6FpEhIcN2gKXx0MUDNMMlr 3ARV5gBH9M1BV7dETeIW0I5jznugV3+eKh8gjAIGNGWCtr5RSgG94DvUzHrPDfIU 0PmkOSe+ERpeVrkCpYc7o1DF+CQtLeBmx2TVW0DGGtVBIw1HngyZXq2joPIfuXB7 JhiwzshyyC9HHr5/cojxNRcDKtA1wlhVQd8W8FrLmYwr2WdldorxKOypCIGOI+Kh ok6CO+AKO6bgQ/sk47+IXtghMsNl4CawXKjZckD+ScsO0xpx2ReYFLEDdUAeeBge kGW9eLNE9l7RMGZpql2rJ8MqirhWYuCOG1zhzc1iw+8a1YpILecbAoGgGQ==
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/20121115 / 01InTkJ7E
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:20:55 -0000

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:41:31 -0800
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

> My own reading (RFC4627) is that the key in a JSON object is Unicode,
> but it says nothing about case sensitivity.

Well, here's one specification that uses JSON:
http://www.jsonrpc.org/specification

and it says: "All member names exchanged between the Client and the
Server that are considered for matching of any kind should be
considered to be case-sensitive."

> The question before us, then, is whether we need to say we expect
> matching to be case-sensitive, since RFC4627 is (perhaps
> deliberately) ambiguous.

I prefer case-sensitivity because it narrows the acceptable range
of inputs.

Regards,

David.

From superuser@gmail.com  Thu Nov 15 11:25:27 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 5F22C21F8484 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.468
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bZjshcAuSLWh for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F1921F8480 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so1692198lbk.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pxSA16T7lGUxUXiezTmSAzyz5hvxU0+DZJtx9kYyF6Q=; b=Ss8l4+Ew9l0P6sY3tD8EEOp1bbwQFUluazsqY8bbz/kONXSBNJeKnzzxsB62gpm9U9 4WN8nCGGeY/DXESbVT6pbFJ019ll8ZrmAYeSbee3xCrXjLUoPiZ+N15OBYxUsxyhtZ2G Ofi4UxHTgVE5U3kKiBFRB86NY4aV3LvMlCwMlu4bXUqe1ed1YcQN2r6HaHl7eQHz08M4 9Ny/rjAmwqBpq2mRYwiFGiOMIKiDDq9+7406bHwELMHdY0eqalqT3FedDUPPGVg+BQA2 i9wOZhZfY+UVRgDivr37B36Y+oBSiBVlF8XdA45ygi9IcsWEILczTyC+QMRo/ClEnLHq 4YhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.99.8 with SMTP id em8mr1027478lbb.13.1353007523306; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.234 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3365326f-3d95-4581-b7a1-d943832f25d3.maildroid@localhost>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com> <3365326f-3d95-4581-b7a1-d943832f25d3.maildroid@localhost>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZy4kT+wusoCx05gzSaWdD0wP7k_knq5ZoFRQib4o1H7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04017311ce1eb004ce8d9cc4
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:25:27 -0000

--f46d04017311ce1eb004ce8d9cc4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

There's a question of implementation, however. The JSON library I've been
using does its key matching using strcmp(), which is case sensitive.  I
presume that means JSON is inherently case sensitive.  I think that means
we don't need to say anything, because this is a property of JSON, not a
property of the use of JSON. But I also don't mind being explicit about it.

-MSK


On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> imo case insensitivity is to be explicitly preferred always.  case
> sensitivity should apply only when unavoidable.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
>   via mobile
>
>

--f46d04017311ce1eb004ce8d9cc4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There&#39;s a question of implementation, however. The JSON library I&#39;v=
e been using does its key matching using strcmp(), which is case sensitive.=
=A0 I presume that means JSON is inherently case sensitive.=A0 I think that=
 means we don&#39;t need to say anything, because this is a property of JSO=
N, not a property of the use of JSON. But I also don&#39;t mind being expli=
cit about it.<br>
<br>-MSK<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O=
n Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Dave Crocker <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:dcrocker@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">dcrocker@gmail.com</a>&gt;=
</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p><br>
imo case insensitivity is to be explicitly preferred always.=A0 case sensit=
ivity should apply only when unavoidable.<br>
</p><p>=A0<br>
d/</p><div class=3D"im"><br>
--<br>
=A0 Dave Crocker<br>
=A0 Brandenburg InternetWorking<br>
<a>=A0=A0bbiw.net</a></div><p></p>
<p>=A0=A0via mobile</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--f46d04017311ce1eb004ce8d9cc4--

From dfs@roaringpenguin.com  Thu Nov 15 11:34:10 2012
Return-Path: <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
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 E91D721F8530 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:34:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69dVTmrsw8B6 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo3.roaringpenguin.com (www.ipv6.roaringpenguin.com [IPv6:2607:f748:1200:fb:70:38:112:54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F1A21F852D for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vanadium.roaringpenguin.com ([192.168.10.23]) by colo3.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id qAFJY8s8026551 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:34:08 -0500
Received: from hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com (dfs@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.1]) by vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id qAFJY47A011471 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:34:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:34:04 -0500
From: "David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20121115143404.276eb795@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZy4kT+wusoCx05gzSaWdD0wP7k_knq5ZoFRQib4o1H7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com> <3365326f-3d95-4581-b7a1-d943832f25d3.maildroid@localhost> <CAL0qLwZy4kT+wusoCx05gzSaWdD0wP7k_knq5ZoFRQib4o1H7A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Roaring Penguin Software Inc.
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-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:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=main; bh=f6y0VoOIK0a5 ISfuene8E+46Sh4=; b=ps/ESHM6iZ0pnb4BerdcKactKnkpIcTsqdl651VFWFSf KgPKmtjomfi+mGxrjHpbXrUqkRzolJyHtevUik3XS643vlF3u4cyz3+ma2NzYDpY OKp8g1+L47Yr6ArBuYhrU0zE8tEoLbYnmonI8kc6fDhyjtwx816MgxnXFBTt4ASH 2PoRh1cO7uXUdl98TGxBBeSXzIC0L8OOlT0I79aYmQxfAD7zZRY5hP3Vnk6gHX3m mH6FnDGPt/C0DpTMaxN+MUFBPdwY5Ndg3+kfvyq1b7dXFQek0DvkVthpaO2Cr983 njpHkwYNiEBMpf5Z1zS8VHTGcAcTkcSTtF8xSG9q4Q==
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/20121115 / 01InTy8Bw
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:34:11 -0000

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:25:23 -0800
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's a question of implementation, however. The JSON library I've
> been using does its key matching using strcmp(), which is case
> sensitive.  I presume that means JSON is inherently case sensitive.
> I think that means we don't need to say anything, because this is a
> property of JSON, not a property of the use of JSON. But I also don't
> mind being explicit about it.

I prefer explicitly say explicitly that it is case-sensitive.  Comparing UTF-8
strings case-sensitively is much easier, faster and less error-prone
than comparing them case-insensitively, especially once you use non-Latin
characters.  (I doubt that will be an issue for the reputation use-case,
but still...)

Regards,

David.

From dcrocker@gmail.com  Thu Nov 15 12:01:56 2012
Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
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 460BB21F8487 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.206,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtAYkqdMSFOO for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60ADF21F8A52 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id uo1so1411439pbc.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:37 -0800 (PST)
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=rlKOecY8zhjTl/Wn3qTBGWueFlP+I6hpMytGaH8Q4gc=; b=AKGSSX9I8qrxa4puQOiPa9ZpXeBHdVPmdzA76HpguGFc48WOd1czHZLswfJLfe8uZL ZkDk4hKz/GvJcO+z4QyaVy49PZcfmz75GH3iEYNehYBA17KpreSaLR4tHAQyQEUoDJU7 j4WmbYi7hKp0/nRfPELR+vlBeSH8lBpaX0xtawvvTGL+8pisWFG3HYNrg3EHy4FRMEY1 pKvUW/MH3OJqZC/k9JVGRFItQh0Lce7s3iPu7O4FxuihfQcutMmTvbQDyrKjYvnIgf58 OtWAWrrvGeRaKrvQSD8MaoL1coBfDhyoHCWI4WYTxBSk53jedSWB6vXvM/g3fsK4gMwM O3tg==
Received: by 10.66.73.132 with SMTP id l4mr6219194pav.48.1353009697184; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (adsl-67-127-56-94.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net. [67.127.56.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ue7sm9963617pbc.53.2012.11.15.12.01.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50A54A17.1090400@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:01:27 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <20121114074216.GB2357@x28.adm.denic.de> <CAL0qLwZPL1FYZ_9g3eh8UY=Pc7sk62qVXOEvoDLAD3RR-R5eqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYGSBhEgTmkxLU3m4u23=udEaZW83CxKbzN5B1m_d+-7g@mail.gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EE@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <CAL0qLwZy5kSaBHrBAqfMffWS99GsLjysgOqoN5AN8AwwpPaXCQ@mail.gmail.com> <20121115142044.61478035@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121115142044.61478035@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:01:56 -0000

On 11/15/2012 11:20 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> I prefer case-sensitivity because it narrows the acceptable range
> of inputs.


and it increases the source of human errors.


in any event:

    1. If we can document standard practice for json, then that's the 
practice we should use.

    2. Whatever the choice, it needs to be explicit in our docs.  Don't 
rely on assumptions about the infrastructure (json, or whatever.)

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Nov 19 11:09:00 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
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 8319C21F86E4; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:09:00 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67On1FIzKrz5; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:09:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFF521F86D0; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:09:00 -0800 (PST)
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: 4.36
Message-ID: <20121119190900.24950.66436.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:09:00 -0800
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-05.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:09:00 -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-05.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2012-11-19

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-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-media-type-05


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Nov 19 11:10:19 2012
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
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 71D9121F86EE; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:10:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.485
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72OBKSPMW-bR; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8584921F869F; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:10:18 -0800 (PST)
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: 4.36
Message-ID: <20121119191018.20459.16276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:10:18 -0800
Cc: domainrep@ietf.org
Subject: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:10:19 -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 Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
	Author(s)       : Nathaniel Borenstein
                          Murray S. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2012-11-19

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-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


From superuser@gmail.com  Mon Nov 19 11:11:09 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 8311B21F869F for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.439
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hbhrDMQyrwKf for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1CF21F86E8 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so4309507lbk.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=YrQUtgygNmiLKOSFdF6Z2Csu3x1eJfG8/Y/PomB2W3A=; b=TWtASQDEuO7EaCmq9pAxVhanp7IaUzavEhd7l1EC8/Raa+m9gn44GWMhHOR4muF2QU LXSB6R87YNlodYlddtXfYh60iB/DxsYgQkLZTSyPa+KuogBbcvAvnVhUOWZi+RWTntpz Qcc6ob5LMVRNz3MdlkNCvA/ZD5QwTXqiTgbJA1j7zOTPD8L+yaZ5AN4KbpHo4XnG2qXC 6TWj0naMq2WfrO2VMH246rre1JdVq1mG6o5kNxJbowIsiQV5Z/BGRe9fcaIL2Gym7yvx q+z/I8E4MIeK6Eq97DGZtOmo5fgJThttrwOzcuQpG5yVnpXG4Er1mcgT9MKKgFTBvYe6 o3Zg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.42.34 with SMTP id k2mr5464277lbl.26.1353352267120; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.234 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121119190900.24950.66436.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20121119190900.24950.66436.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwazds+VFWGfKM=M+AubdAP6bNq0u_YkxJ9=N=ra23=ukg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b390f7dae233ed804cedde128
Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-05.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:11:09 -0000

--485b390f7dae233ed804cedde128
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This version rolls everything to lowercase, as discussed.  No other changes.

-MSK


On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:09 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  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-05.txt
>         Pages           : 12
>         Date            : 2012-11-19
>
> 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-05
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-repute-media-type-05
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>

--485b390f7dae233ed804cedde128
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This version rolls everything to lowercase, as discussed.=A0 No other chang=
es.<br><br>-MSK<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_q=
uote">On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:09 AM,  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">internet-drafts@ietf.org<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies.<br>
=A0This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of th=
e IETF.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : A Media Type for Reputation Int=
erchange<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Nathaniel Borenstein<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Murray S. Kucherawy<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-05.t=
xt<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 12<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-11-19<br>
<br>
Abstract:<br>
=A0 =A0This document defines a media type for exchanging reputation<br>
=A0 =A0information about an arbitrary class of object.<br>
<br>
<br>
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:<br>
<a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-media-type" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-media-t=
ype</a><br>
<br>
There&#39;s also a htmlized version available at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-05" targ=
et=3D"_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-media-type-05</a=
><br>
<br>
A diff from the previous version is available at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-media-type-=
05" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-=
media-type-05</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:<br>
<a href=3D"ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/" target=3D"_blank">ftp://ftp=
.ietf.org/internet-drafts/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
I-D-Announce mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org">I-D-Announce@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft" target=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d=
-announce<br>
Internet-Draft</a> directories: <a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html"=
 target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a><br>
or <a href=3D"ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt" target=3D"_blank">=
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--485b390f7dae233ed804cedde128--

From superuser@gmail.com  Mon Nov 19 11:17:20 2012
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 4B35B21F8608 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:17:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.442
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UOYtBR9Y8Ewd for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:17:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C80921F8425 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so4227661lah.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:17:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Cu10X0wty4aTRhlZ2KkRLehiOOIzejKfJKFmLDoIZkg=; b=BYM9WrnIN8J2SHPThZHXfESF78vpqyCpxnUAaKmhnIt6F6gUpUpige0vuTjLT21nwz OZ/7/jlU1Y44QaVJamNtc6S6RC1nEFkxj5ulY4pI0RkAgo9fUTmuooABfzGfKtoi0Y8d uHnSQmFNnhAd0owNcs9DaMjbd7KPtk9zhm2ozf6L594CYTZ/z9p9e7IdGa9W8llYXwRC Z/KkjUZo3H2+0tNOAZezdRhmd3xKdKXFmqFOTuxkZ4ANv1/UXo0DA6MRXcwkVswxXB9F 9pizpd6nnPa/hsLTKKLZGhJJmFwGvudMzKINyYcS4Chuiu+UzJwEV5Ij7iVQ9nm4oYF4 r+RA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.83.133 with SMTP id q5mr2971300lby.40.1353352637937; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.80.234 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:17:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121119191018.20459.16276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20121119191018.20459.16276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:17:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwb60EC4CCZ-ahaD6QCOQmh+qOJhA0GZU=cG-o9iOE0WPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04016c2d3d79d004ceddf73c
Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:17:20 -0000

--f46d04016c2d3d79d004ceddf73c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Changes based on WGLC discussion so far, as follows:

- fold all keywords to lowercase
- fix the reference to the location of the IANA action we request to create
the REPUTE registry
- add "abusive" definition (I see the errant punctuation in there, will fix
it in the next version)
- mention that not all identifiers are domain names

I haven't added any text about key matching (i.e., case sensitivity)
because it seems like that's really a property of JSON and not of REPUTE.
I also note that appsawg is discussing it with a document they have in
WGLC, and they have a lot more attention to it over there, so we can simply
take our cues from that one unless we want to do something definitive on
our own.

Please let me know if I missed anything.

-MSK


On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  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-06.txt
>         Pages           : 8
>         Date            : 2012-11-19
>
> 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-06
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>

--f46d04016c2d3d79d004ceddf73c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Changes based on WGLC discussion so far, as follows:<br><br>- fold all keyw=
ords to lowercase<br>- fix the reference to the location of the IANA action=
 we request to create the REPUTE registry<br>- add &quot;abusive&quot; defi=
nition (I see the errant punctuation in there, will fix it in the next vers=
ion)<br>
- mention that not all identifiers are domain names<br><br>I haven&#39;t ad=
ded any text about key matching (i.e., case sensitivity) because it seems l=
ike that&#39;s really a property of JSON and not of REPUTE.=A0 I also note =
that appsawg is discussing it with a document they have in WGLC, and they h=
ave a lot more attention to it over there, so we can simply take our cues f=
rom that one unless we want to do something definitive on our own.<br>
<br>Please let me know if I missed anything.<br><br>-MSK<br><div class=3D"g=
mail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:1=
0 AM,  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">internet-drafts@ietf.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies.<br>
=A0This draft is a work item of the Reputation Services Working Group of th=
e IETF.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : A Reputation Response Set for E=
mail Identifiers<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Nathaniel Borenstein<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Murray S. Kucherawy<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifie=
rs-06.txt<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 8<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-11-19<br>
<br>
Abstract:<br>
=A0 =A0This document defines a response set for describing assertions a<br>
=A0 =A0reputation service provider can make about email identifers, for use=
<br>
=A0 =A0in generating reputons.<br>
<br>
<br>
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:<br>
<a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-email-identif=
iers" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-repute-=
email-identifiers</a><br>
<br>
There&#39;s also a htmlized version available at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-0=
6" target=3D"_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-repute-email-ide=
ntifiers-06</a><br>
<br>
A diff from the previous version is available at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-repute-email-ident=
ifiers-06" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-=
repute-email-identifiers-06</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:<br>
<a href=3D"ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/" target=3D"_blank">ftp://ftp=
.ietf.org/internet-drafts/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
I-D-Announce mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org">I-D-Announce@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft" target=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d=
-announce<br>
Internet-Draft</a> directories: <a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html"=
 target=3D"_blank">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a><br>
or <a href=3D"ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt" target=3D"_blank">=
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--f46d04016c2d3d79d004ceddf73c--

From dfs@roaringpenguin.com  Mon Nov 19 11:23:10 2012
Return-Path: <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
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 BB52521F869F for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:23:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.276
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BUAS+SOgYk17 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo3.roaringpenguin.com (www.ipv6.roaringpenguin.com [IPv6:2607:f748:1200:fb:70:38:112:54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C3D21F85E0 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vanadium.roaringpenguin.com ([192.168.10.23]) by colo3.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id qAJJN37I004350 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:23:03 -0500
Received: from hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com (dfs@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com [192.168.10.1]) by vanadium.roaringpenguin.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id qAJJN2X1003703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:23:03 -0500
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:23:02 -0500
From: "David F. Skoll" <dfs@roaringpenguin.com>
To: domainrep@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20121119142302.3e35db4a@hydrogen.roaringpenguin.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwazds+VFWGfKM=M+AubdAP6bNq0u_YkxJ9=N=ra23=ukg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20121119190900.24950.66436.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwazds+VFWGfKM=M+AubdAP6bNq0u_YkxJ9=N=ra23=ukg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Roaring Penguin Software Inc.
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-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=main; bh=IMsX3B/M919/ YMFfluHfrmRYr1c=; b=hNzqWFsI/hhtKEMsu6Ar3ED+FATlOSyEcXoS+z9vIxFN /orvJ+HqCs/6sS9mo8BjUkTwH1emAdQntbLAHSei1GFoJ2GyGYSyqSuud2P6iDLs 9xYHEQKmA9NzKQCEJjBo2TMZ+f2VTswYope0aIQjmE7wELrzk9bcpAfGxmbAGspZ cfHE5DPpKBSyfFtfKE44o5uJ7d2UkmydMMdY7v5Z79cVuxdzK82Rpa/ZLaiap7+c lin2wf+nw+qz4WkD5O2YQMMkjVahPJHAWsYP4IY7Rkk6Bsx4yA82o4qKmaWcMOcJ GjXzEKlheDI8IC/ksugnU5yG8SNjMidIi4FQHOsBkQ==
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/20121119 / 01Ipvn3A4
Subject: Re: [domainrep] I-D Action: draft-ietf-repute-media-type-05.txt
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list  <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:23:10 -0000

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:11:07 -0800
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:

> This version rolls everything to lowercase, as discussed.  No other
> changes.

It looks great!

Regards,

David.