An Overview of the Design of BIMI
draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-03-11
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                           S. Blank
Internet-Draft                                                  Valimail
Intended status: Informational                                N. Kumaran
Expires: September 12, 2019                                       Google
                                                          J. Levine, Ed.
                                                           Standcore LLC
                                                          March 11, 2019

                   An Overview of the Design of BIMI
                       draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00

Abstract

   Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI) provides a
   mechanism for mail senders to publish a validated logotype that mail
   receivers can display with the senders' messages.  This document
   provides a brief overview of BIMI and examines some of the trade offs
   and decisions in its design.

Discussion venue

   Comments on this draft may be directed to the BIMI list at
   bimi@ietf.org.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Blank, et al.          Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                BIMI Overview                   March 2019

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  High level architecture and data flow . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Risks and problems of BIMI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Private club  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Inconsistent validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Pay to Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  User Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Indicator Publishing Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Message header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  S/MIME signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  DNS assertion records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Validation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Indicator Usage and Rights Validation Scenarios . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Registered Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  Registered Mark (untrusted jurisdiction)  . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  Common Use Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.5.  Common Use Mark (untrusted jurisdiction)  . . . . . . . .  10
     5.6.  New/Rebranded Mark  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.7.  Mildly Altered Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.8.  Multiple Marks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.9.  Derivative Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.10. Co-marketing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.11. Franchisee  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Validator options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Pros and cons of validation approaches  . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Receiver Managed Reputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.3.  Remote Reputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.4.  Centralized system  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.5.  Self validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.6.  Third Party Validation Publishing Options . . . . . . . .  15
       6.6.1.  Publishing validation: Certificates . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.6.2.  Publishing validation: API  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.7.  General Issues of Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Show full document text