[domainrep] Review of: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Mon, 20 May 2013 03:11 UTC

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 E56F921F8F2E for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1FQTWW-oct7x for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222CE21F8F20 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wd20so4830054obb.24 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YsYiM7QBv9GarsSgpB0aUc9LXCNhB8kWMYOpicNxjZY=; b=B/EoOjymPtJGbLdfzwfdC96SHjRluYavSZbtQUQG8Ty0K5jvX/CHgtplY46QchAwNE PQHYt/aSrtZUfJD+y7q22TJvu8T8o8vxoFFrn6XUQKq176mwaCC1sWSA1xAvmn9aQCR0 VVLwpJSsCcAOMPPh3GIaqpayu33oFANFxc3qqhriQitQi7KhfDN8M1ec4hwHOMnIuFTl vrDGNUtmUxugj7UtozYDQZn/0nPKyExWjAnM3T1560EJpKCkAm49q0kHp3ElAaiqULZI /Z29Lu/E/WCA9ZluQbnQf6f/4vB2x7AvhavfIzrQzzMUqx/r749gm18s6dPf3b2Bf7Ab GwEQ==
X-Received: by 10.60.148.234 with SMTP id tv10mr2436835oeb.122.1369019480726; Sun, 19 May 2013 20:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id na9sm11303461obb.10.2013.05.19.20.11.19 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 19 May 2013 20:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51999455.5060903@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 20:11:17 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: [domainrep] Review of: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06
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, 20 May 2013 03:11:22 -0000

{ This review of provided as part of document shepherding /d }


Review of:    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
ID:           draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-06
Reviewed by:  D. Crocker
Review Date:  19 May 2013



Summary:

This document is part of a series that define a query/response mechanism 
for reporting assessment (reputation) information about an object.  The 
current document builds upon the basic mechanism and tailors is for 
reporting reputation of email-related identifiers.


The document is usable in its current form.  Some very minor changes are 
suggested but not required.



Detailed Comments:


> 1.  Introduction
>
>    This document specifies a response set for describing reputation of
>    an email identifier.  A "response set" in this context is defined in
>    [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL] and is used to describe assertions a reputation
>    service provider can make about email identifiers as well as meta-
>    data that can be included in such a reply beyond the base set
>    specified there.

Should the query (http) and response (media-type) documents also be 
cited explicitly?




> 3.1.  Assertions
>
>    The "email-id" reputation application recognizes the following
>    assertions:
>
>
>
>
>
> Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires May 23, 2013                  [Page 3]
> 
> Internet-Draft  Email Identifiers Reputation Response Set  November 2012
>
>
>    abusive:  The subject identifier is associated with sending or
>       handling > email of a personally abusive, threatening, or
>       otherwise harassing nature.
>
>    fraud:  The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
>       of fraudulent email, such as "phishing" (some good discussion on
>       this topic can be found in [IODEF-PHISHING])
>
>    invalid-recipients:  The subject identifier is associated with
>       delivery attempts to nonexistent recipients
>
>    malware:  The subject identifier is associated with the sending or
>       handling of malware via email
>
>    spam:  The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
>       of unwanted bulk email

This list seems to cover the common behaviors, but I'm wondering whether 
it's worth the email-id application -- and perhaps each application -- 
should have its own sub-registry.  It's likely that whatever list is 
defined for email, usage will identify additional labels.  One that 
comes to mind -- and it's only meant as an example -- is "marketing: The 
subject identifier engages in sending excessive marketing emails to its 
customers".  Formally, that's not spam, but it's irritating enough to 
plausibly warrant a reputation note.  I'm sure there are others.


>
>    For all assertions, the "rating" scale is linear: A value of 0.0
>    means there is no data to support the assertion, a value of 1.0 means
>    all accumulated data support the assertion, and the intervening
>    values have a linear relationship (i.e., a score of "x" is twice as
>    strong of an assertion as a value of "x/2").



-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net