Authentication-Results Registration for Vouch by Reference Results
RFC 6212
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from msk@cloudmark.com, draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org to barryleiba@computer.org |
|
2011-04-11
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
|
2011-04-11
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 6212' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2011-04-11
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2011-01-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2011-01-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2011-01-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2011-01-19
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: changed to 'Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-01-18
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-04.txt |
|
2011-01-17
|
04 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] I was unclear about header.md and header.mv when I first read the doc. However, I'm not sure these suggestions are an improvement... In … [Ballot comment] I was unclear about header.md and header.mv when I first read the doc. However, I'm not sure these suggestions are an improvement... In this text from section 4: If "header.md" is present, its value MUST be the DNS domain name about which a VBR query was made. This is typically taken from the "md" tag of the "VBR-Info" header field. ([VBR] describes alternate methods for selecting the domain used as the subject of that query.) If "header.mv" is present, its value MUST be the DNS domain that was queried as the potential voucher for the "header.md" domain. This is typically one of the values of the "mv" tag in the "VBR-Info" header field on the message being evaluated, although a local list of vouchers may be used in place of that value as described in [VBR]. Where the VBR-Info header field was not present on a message but a mail server decides to conduct a VBR query anyway, the server MAY still generate an Authentication-Results field to relay the results of the VBR query. In this instance, the "header.md" value MUST be the domain name that was evaluated as the sending domain using VBR, and the "header.mv" value MUST be the domain name that was used as the voucher. ...is it true that header.md (if present) always carries the DNS domain name about which a VBR query was made and header.mv (if present) always carries the DNS domain that was queried as the potential voucher for the header.md domain? If I've got that right, it might be clearer to simply give those definitions and then describe that the query is prompted either by the existence of the VBR-Info field or by policy on the server. Perhaps: If "header.md" is present, its value MUST be the DNS domain name about which a VBR query was made. If "header.mv" is present, its value MUST be the DNS domain that was queried as the potential voucher for the "header.md" domain. If the VBR query was made because of the presence of the "VBR-Info" header field, "header.md" is typically taken from the "md" tag of the "VBR-Info" header field. ([VBR] describes alternate methods for selecting the domain used as the subject of that query.) "header.mv" is typically one of the values of the "mv" tag in the "VBR-Info" header field on the message being evaluated, although a local list of vouchers may be used in place of that value as described in [VBR]. Where the VBR-Info header field was not present on a message but a mail server decides to conduct a VBR query anyway, the server MAY still generate an Authentication-Results field to relay the results of the VBR query. |
|
2011-01-13
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2011-01-13
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2011-01-13
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-13
|
04 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] I have a couple of suggestions to improve Clarit that I will enter when I get back on-line |
|
2011-01-13
|
04 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-12
|
04 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-10
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: David McGrew. |
|
2011-01-07
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-03.txt |
|
2011-01-07
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: changed to 'This document is short of one vote. There were no other changes since the January 6th IESG telechat.<br>Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> … [Note]: changed to 'This document is short of one vote. There were no other changes since the January 6th IESG telechat.<br>Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' |
|
2011-01-06
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2011-01-20 from 2011-01-06 |
|
2011-01-05
|
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-05
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-04
|
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-02
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-01-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup. |
|
2011-01-01
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2011-01-01
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-02.txt |
|
2010-12-29
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
|
2010-12-29
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
|
2010-12-21
|
04 | Amanda Baber | [Note]: 'Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' added by Amanda Baber |
|
2010-12-21
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two IANA actions that need to be completed. First, in the Email Authentication Methods subregistry … IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two IANA actions that need to be completed. First, in the Email Authentication Methods subregistry of the Email Authentication Parameters located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml the following registration will be added: +------------+----------+--------+----------------+-----------------+ | Method | Defined | ptype | property | value | +------------+----------+--------+----------------+-----------------+ | vbr | RFC5518 | header | md | DNS domain name | | | | | | used as the | | | | | | subject of a | | | | | | VBR query | | | | +----------------+-----------------+ | | | | mv | DNS domain name | | | | | | of the entity | | | | | | acting as | | | | | | the voucher | +------------+----------+--------+----------------+-----------------+ Second, in the Email Authentication Result Names subregistry of the Email Authentication Parameters located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xhtml five auth methods will be added to existing registrations as follows: added to auth method "none" --> Defined in: RFC5451 Method: vbr Meaning: No valid VBR-Info header was found in the message, or a domain name to be queried could not be determined. added to auth method "pass" --> Defined in: RFC5451 Method: vbr Meaning: A VBR query was completed and the vouching service queried gave a positive response. added to auth method "fail" --> Defined in: RFC5451 Method: vbr Meaning: A VBR query was completed and the vouching service queried did not give a positive response, or the message contained multiple VBR-Info header fields with different "mc" values. added to auth method "temperror" --> Defined in: RFC5451 Method: vbr Meaning: A VBR query was attempted but could not be completed due to some error that is likely transient in nature such as a temporary DNS error. A later attempt may produce a final result. added to auth method "permerror" --> Defined in: RFC5451 Method: vbr Meaning: A VBR query was attempted but could not be completed due to some error that is likely not transient in nature such as a permanent DNS error. A later attempt is unlikely to produce a final result. IANA understands that these are the only IANA Actions that need to be completed upon approval of this document. |
|
2010-12-03
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew |
|
2010-12-03
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew |
|
2010-12-02
|
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2010-12-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-12-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued |
|
2010-12-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-12-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Barry Leiba is the document shepherd. I have reviewed this version, and am satisfied that it's ready, but for the following: The registration procedure in RFC 5451 is "IETF Review", so this document does not need to be standards track. The IESG should decide whether Informational is suitable. section 4, paragraph 1 does not use the same terminology for describing the things you're registering as RFC 5451 does. OLD This memo adds to the "Email Authentication Method Name Registry", created by IANA upon publication of [AUTHRES], the "header.md" and "header.mv" reporting items. NEW This memo adds to the "Email Authentication Method Name Registry", created by IANA upon publication of [AUTHRES], the following: * The method "vbr". * Associated with that method, the properties (reporting items) "header.md" and "header.mv". In paragraphs 2 and 3, you need to make it clear whether each of header.md and header.mv is REQUIRED or OPTIONAL in a vbr method statement. Possibly RFC 5451 says that all properties are optional, but I'd still say it this way, for example: OLD The value associated with "header.md" in the header field MUST be the DNS domain name about which a VBR query was made. This is typically taken from the "md" tag of the "VBR-Info" header filed. ([VBR] describes the methods for selecting the construction and execution of that query.) NEW, IF OPTIONAL If "header.md" is present, its value MUST be the DNS domain name about which a VBR query was made. This is typically taken from the "md" tag of the "VBR-Info" header field. ([VBR] describes the methods for selecting the construction and execution of that query.) NEW, IF REQUIRED The "header.md" property MUST be present, and its value MUST be the DNS domain name about which a VBR query was made. This is typically taken from the "md" tag of the "VBR-Info" header field. ([VBR] describes the methods for selecting the construction and execution of that query.) (Note also that I've corrected the spelling of "field" in paragraph 2, there, after "VBR-Info".) (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document is an individual submission, but has had adequate review, and I have no concerns. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? I have no concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I have no concerns. There is no IPR involved. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus of the interested community behind it. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The document passes idnits 2.12.05, as well as my own review. There are no further formal reviews required. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. All references are properly separated and labelled. There are no downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There is no formal language in this document. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. RFC 5451 defined a new header field for electronic mail messages that presents the results of a message authentication effort in a machine-readable format. In the interim, a proposal for rudimentary domain-level reputation called Vouch By Reference [RFC 5518] was published and is now beginning to see popular use. This memo updates the registry of properties in Authentication- Results: message header fields to allow relaying of the results of a Vouch By Reference query. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing to note. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This has been implemented for some time in opendkim, an open-source package supported by the document author. The Spamhaus domain whitelist is providing market pressure for more implementations, as the authentication-results header field itself receives wider deployment. |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> is the document shepherd.' added |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | State Change Notice email list has been changed to msk@cloudmark.com, draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr@tools.ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org from msk@cloudmark.com, draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr@tools.ietf.org |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-01.txt> (Authentication-Results Registration For Vouch By Reference Results) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Authentication-Results Registration For Vouch By Reference Results' <draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-12-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr/ |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-01-06 |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Last Call was requested |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-12-01
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
|
2010-11-29
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-11-29
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-01.txt |
|
2010-11-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-00.txt |