A Model for Reputation Interchange
draft-ietf-repute-model-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (repute WG)
Last updated 2011-12-16 (latest revision 2011-11-29)
Replaces draft-kucherawy-reputation-model
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state AD is watching
Telechat date
Responsible AD Pete Resnick
Send notices to repute-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-repute-model@tools.ietf.org
Network Working Group                                      N. Borenstein
Internet-Draft                                                  Mimecast
Intended status: Informational                              M. Kucherawy
Expires: June 1, 2012                                          Cloudmark
                                                       November 29, 2011

                   A Model for Reputation Interchange
                       draft-ietf-repute-model-00

Abstract

   This document describes the general model underlying a set of
   proposals for the exchange of reputation information on the Internet,
   and provides a roadmap to the four additional documents that
   collectively define a reputation interchange protocol.  It is
   intended roughly to follow the recommendations of RFC4101 for
   describing a protocol model.

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 http://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 June 1, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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

Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Reputation Base               November 2011

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Document Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.1.  Keywords  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.2.  Vocabulary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Information Represented in the Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Information Flow in the Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     7.1.  Biased Reputation Agents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     7.2.  Malformed Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix A.  Public Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Borenstein & Kucherawy    Expires June 1, 2012                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               Reputation Base               November 2011

1.  Introduction

   Traditionally, most Internet protocols have taken place between
   unauthenticated entities.  For example, when an email message is
   submitted via [SMTP], the server typically trusts the self-
   identification of the sender, and the sender trusts that the [DNS]
   has led it to the right server.  Both kinds of trust are easily
   betrayed, leading to spam, phishing, and a host of other ills.

   In recent years, stronger identity mechanisms have begun to see wider
   deployment.  For example, the [DKIM] protocol permits a much higher
   level of trust in the identity of the sending domain of an email
   message.  While this is a major step forward, by itself it does
   little to solve the problem of bad actors on the Internet.  Even if
   you can be sure a message comes from a domain called
   "trustworthy.example.com," you don't really know whether or not that
   domain is trustworthy.  As a practical matter, the bad actors seem to
   have adopted DKIM even more rapidly than the good ones, in the hope
   that some receiving domains will naively confuse a confirmation of
   identity with trustworthiness.
Show full document text