Skip to main content

An Architecture for Reputation Reporting

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    repute mailing list <>,
    repute chair <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'An Architecture for Reputation Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-repute-model-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'An Architecture for Reputation Reporting'
  (draft-ietf-repute-model-10.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Reputation Services Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Barry Leiba.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Using work on SPF and DKIM for motivation, the draft builds upon
   recent work in email authentication. The document describes a basic
   architecture for reputation queries. It defines reputation as "the
   estimation in which an identifiable actor is held, especially by the
   community or the Internet public generally." The document sets the
   stage for detailed specifications by providing:

   o Vocabulary for the current work and work of this type;
   o The types and content of queries that can be supported;
   o The extensible range of response information that can be provided;
   o A query/response protocol;
   o Query/response transport conventions.

Working Group Summary

   The document has gone through multiple drafts, over a period of time,
   that were discussed in the working group. Discussion was mild and
   supportive, with no significant controversy. The working group
   'style' was mostly of a small, collaborative set of active
   participants, but has become quite dormant in recent months. Changes
   during AD Evaluation were passed by the few remaining active

   The document includes some core material published previously, which
   means that it is already well-established. Equally, the document's
   terminology, model and discussion are reasonably straightforward and
   not controversial.

Document Quality

   The document is well-organized, defines its scope and is usable in its
   current form.


   Document Shepherd: Dave Crocker
   Responsible AD: Pete Resnick

RFC Editor Note