Security Labels in Internet Email
RFC 7444
| Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(February 2015; No errata)
Was draft-zeilenga-email-seclabel (individual)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Kurt Zeilenga , Alexey Melnikov | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Independent Submission | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-zeilenga-email-seclabel | ||
| Stream | ISE state | Published RFC | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-08-31) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7444 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Independent Submission K. Zeilenga
Request for Comments: 7444 A. Melnikov
Category: Informational Isode Limited
ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2015
Security Labels in Internet Email
Abstract
This document describes a header field, SIO-Label, for use in
Internet email to convey the sensitivity of the message. This header
field may carry a textual representation (a display marking) and/or a
structural representation (a security label) of the sensitivity of
the message. This document also describes a header field, SIO-Label-
History, for recording changes in the message's label.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7444.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Relationship to Inline Sensitivity Markings ................3
1.2. Relationship to Preexisting Security Label Header Fields ...4
1.3. Relationship to Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME ......4
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................5
3. Overview ........................................................5
4. The SIO-Label Header Field ......................................6
5. The SIO-Label-History Header Field ..............................9
6. IANA Considerations ............................................12
7. Security Considerations ........................................12
8. References .....................................................14
8.1. Normative References ......................................14
8.2. Informative References ....................................15
Acknowledgements ..................................................16
Authors' Addresses ................................................16
1. Introduction
A security label, sometimes referred to as a confidentiality label,
is a structured representation of the sensitivity of a piece of
information. A security label can be used in conjunction with a
clearance, a structured representation of what sensitive information
a person (or other entity) is authorized to access, and a security
policy to control access to each piece of information. For instance,
an email message could have an "EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL" label that
requires the sender and the receiver to have a clearance granting
access to information labeled "EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL". X.841 [X.841]
provides a discussion of security labels, clearances, and security
policy.
A display marking is a textual representation of the sensitivity of a
piece of information. For instance, "EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL" is a
textual representation of the sensitivity. A security policy can be
used to generate display markings from security labels. Display
markings are generally expected to be prominently displayed whenever
the content is displayed.
Sensitivity-based authorization is used in networks that operate
under a set of information classification rules, such as in
government and military agency networks. The standardized formats
for security labels, clearances, security policy, and associated
authorization models are generalized and can be used in non-
government deployments where appropriate.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
Security labels may also be used for purposes other than
authorization. In particular, they may be used simply to convey the
sensitivity of a piece information. The security label could be
used, for instance, to organize content in a content store.
This document describes a protocol for conveying the sensitivity of a
electronic mail message [RFC5322] as a whole. In particular, this
document describes a header field, SIO-Label, that carries a security
label, a display marking, and display colors. This document also
describes a header field, SIO-Label-History, that records changes in
the message's security label.
This protocol is based in part upon "XEP-0258: Security Labels in
XMPP" [XEP258].
1.1. Relationship to Inline Sensitivity Markings
In environments requiring messages to be marked with an indication of
their sensitivity, it is common to place a textual representation of
the sensitivity, a display marking, within the body to the message
and/or in the Subject header field. For instance, the authors often
receives messages of the form:
To: author <author@example.com>;
From: Some One <someone@example.net>;
Subject: the subject (UNCLASSIFIED)
UNCLASSIFIED
Text of the message.
UNCLASSIFIED
Typically, when placed in the body of the message, the marking is
inserted into the content such that it appears as the first line(s)
of text in the body of the message. This is known as a FLOT (First
Line(s) of Text) marking. The marking may or may not be surrounded
by other text indicating that the marking denotes the sensitivity of
the message. A FLOT may also be accompanied by a LLOT (Last Line(s)
of Text) marking. The message above contains a two-line FLOT and a
two-line LLOT (in both cases, a line providing the marking and an
empty line between the marking and the original content appear).
Typically, when placed in the Subject of the message, the marking is
inserted before or after the contents of the original Subject field;
it is surrounded by parentheses or the like and/or separated from the
content by white space.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
The particular syntax and semantics of inline sensitivity markings
are generally a local matter. This hinders interoperability within
an organization wanting to take actions based upon these markings and
hinders interoperability between cooperating organizations wanting to
usefully share sensitivity information
The authors expect that such markings will continue to be widely
used, especially in the absence of ubiquitous support for a
standardized header field indicating the sensitivity of the message.
The authors hope that through the use of a formally specified header
field, interoperability within organizations and between
organizations can be improved.
1.2. Relationship to Preexisting Security Label Header Fields
A number of non-standard header fields, such as the X-X411 field, are
used to carry a representation of the sensitivity of the message,
whether a structured representation or textual representation.
The authors hope that the use of preexisting (non-standard) header
fields will be replaced, over time, with the use of the header field
described in this document.
1.3. Relationship to Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME
Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME (ESS) [RFC2634] provides,
amongst other services, signature services "for content integrity,
non-repudiation with the proof of origin, and [securely] binding
attributes (such as a security label) to the original content".
While it may be possible to utilize the protocol described in this
document concurrently with ESS, this protocol should generally be
viewed as an alternative to ESS.
It is noted that in ESS, the security label applies to MIME [RFC2045]
content, where in this protocol, the label applies to the message as
a whole.
It is also noted that in ESS, security labels are securely bound to
the MIME content through the use of digital signatures. This
protocol does not provide message-signing services and hence does not
provide secure binding the label to the message, content integrity,
or non-repudiation of the proof of origin.
This protocol is designed for situations/environments where message
signing is not necessary to provide sufficient security.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The formal syntax specifications in this document use the Augmented
Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) as described in [RFC5234].
The term "base64 encoding" is used to refer to the "Base 64 encoding"
defined in Section 4 of [RFC4648]. The term "BER encoding" is used
to refer to encoding per the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) as defined in
[X.690].
3. Overview
A Mail User Agent (MUA) originating a message can, if so configured,
offer the user a menu of sensitivities to choose from and, upon
selection, insert the display marking, foreground and background
colors, and security label parameters associated with that selection
into the SIO-Label header field of the message.
Mail Submission Agents (MSAs), Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs), and Mail
Delivery Agents (MDAs) can then, if so configured, use the provided
sensitivity information (or lack thereof) in determining whether to
accept, forward, or otherwise act on the message as submitted. These
agents, hereafter referred to as Service Agents (SAs), can, if so
configured, modify the sensitivity information of the message, such
as replacing the security label and/or display marking with
equivalent representations of the sensitivity of the message. SAs
that add, modify, or delete the SIO-Label header field SHOULD add an
SIO-Label-History header.
Receiving MUAs that implement this extension SHALL, when displaying
the message, also prominently display the marking, if any, conveyed
in the SIO-Label header field or, if policy-aware and configured to
display locally generated markings, a marking generated by the
conveyed label and the governing policy. It is also desirable to
display this marking in listings of messages. In the case the
conveyed marking is displayed, the marking SHOULD be displayed using
the foreground and background colors conveyed in the header field.
In the case the marking was generated from a conveyed label and the
governing policy, the marking SHOULD be displayed using the
foreground and background colors conveyed by the governing policy.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
While MUAs are not expected to make authorization decisions based
upon values of the SIO-Label header field, MUAs can otherwise use the
provided sensitivity information (or lack thereof) in determining how
to act on the message. For instance, the MUA may organize messages
in its store of messages based upon the content of this header field.
4. The SIO-Label Header Field
The header field name is "SIO-Label", and its content is a set of
key/value pairs, each referred to as a parameter.
Formal header field syntax:
sio-label = "SIO-Label:" [FWS] sio-label-parm-seq [FWS] CRLF
sio-label-parm-seq = sio-label-parm
[ [FWS] ";" [FWS] sio-label-parm-seq ]
sio-label-parm = parameter
where the parameter production is defined in [RFC2231], the FWS
production is defined in [RFC5322], and the CRLF production is
defined in [RFC5234]. It is noted that the productions defined in
[RFC2231] rely on the ABNF in [RFC0822], which implicitly allows for
white space in certain cases. In particular, white space is
implicitly allowed in the parameter production immediately before and
after the "=". It is also noted that [RFC2231] allows for quoted-
string values (for parameter production) of substantial length, for
string characters outside of US-ASCII, or for other such cases.
Implementors should consult the referenced specifications for
details.
The "marking" parameter is a display string for use by
implementations that are unable or unwilling to utilize the governing
security policy to generate display markings. The "marking"
parameter SHOULD generally be provided in SIO-Label header fields.
It ought only be absent where an SA relies on other SAs to generate
the marking.
The "fgcolor" and "bgcolor" parameters are tokens restricted to color
production representing the foreground and background colors,
respectively, for use in colorizing the display marking string.
Their values are RGB colors in hexadecimal format (e.g., "#ff0000"),
or one of the Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) color names (e.g., "red")
given in named-color type below (the 16 HTML4 colors + "orange")
[CSS3-Color]. The default foreground color is black. The default
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
background is white. The "fgcolor" and "bgcolor" parameters SHALL be
absent if the "marking" parameter is absent. The HEXDIG production
below is defined in [RFC5234].
Formal color syntax:
color = hex-color / named-color
hex-color = "#" 6HEXDIG ; Hex-encoded RGB
named-color =
"aqua" /
"black" /
"blue" /
"fuschia" /
"gray" /
"green" /
"lime" /
"maroon" /
"navy" /
"olive" /
"purple" /
"red" /
"silver" /
"teal" /
"white" /
"yellow" /
"orange" ; named colors
The "type" parameter is a quoted string containing the string ":ess",
the string ":x411", the string ":xml", or a URI [RFC3986] denoting
the type and encoding of the "label" parameter. The "label"
parameter value is a quoted string. The "type" parameter SHALL be
present if the "label" parameter is present. The "label" parameter
SHALL be present if the "type" parameter is present. When
sensitivity-based authorization is performed, the absence of the
"type" and "label" parameters indicates that the message is handled
under default handling rules (e.g., as if no SIO-Label was present).
The string ":ess" indicates that the "label" parameter value is the
base64 encoding of the BER encoding of an ESS security label
[RFC2634].
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
ESS Label Example:
SIO-Label: marking="EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL";
fgcolor=black; bgcolor=red;
type=":ess"; label="MQYGASkCAQM="
The string ":x411" indicates that the "label" parameter value is the
base64 encoding of the BER encoding of an X.411 security label
[X.411].
X.411 Label Example:
SIO-Label: marking="EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL";
fgcolor=black; bgcolor=red;
type=":x411"; label="MQYGASkCAQM="
The string ":xml" indicates that the "label" parameter value is the
base64 encoding of a security label represented using [XML]. The XML
prolog SHOULD be absent unless specifically required (such as when
the character encoding is not UTF-8). The particular flavor of
security label representation is indicated by the root element name
and its name space.
XML Label Example:
SIO-Label: marking="EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL";
fgcolor=black; bgcolor=red;
type=":xml";
label*0="PFNlY0xhYmVsIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vZXhhbX";
label*1="BsZS5jb20vc2VjLWxhYmVsLzAiPjxQb2xpY3lJ";
label*2="ZGVudGlmaWVyIFVSST0idXJuOm9pZDoxLjEiLz";
label*3="48Q2xhc3NpZmljYXRpb24+MzwvQ2xhc3NpZmlj";
label*4="YXRpb24+PC9TZWNMYWJlbD4=";
where the XML label, with new lines and white space added for
readability, is:
<SecLabel xmlns="http://example.com/sec-label/0">
<PolicyIdentifier URI="urn:oid:1.1"/>
<Classification>3</Classification>
</SecLabel>
The ":ess" and ":x411" formats SHOULD be used to represent ESS or
X.411 security labels, respectively, instead of any direct XML
representation of these formats.
The header field SHALL minimally contain a "marking" parameter or
contain both the "type" and "label" parameters.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
This header field may be extended to include additional parameters by
future document formally updating (or replacing) this document.
Implementations SHOULD ignore additional parameters they do not
recognize. This recommendation is not a mandate so as to allow
agents to process a message with an SIO-Label header field with
unrecognized parameters differently than a message with an SIO-Label
header field without the unrecognized parameters.
Each message SHALL contain zero or one SIO-Label header field.
Extended Example:
SIO-Label: marking*=us-ascii'en'EXAMPLE%20CONFIDENTIAL;
fgcolor = black ; bgcolor = red ;
type=":ess"; label*0="MQYG";
label*1="ASkCAQM="
The Extended Example is equivalent to the ESS Label Example above.
5. The SIO-Label-History Header Field
Any service agent MAY record label changes in an SIO-Label-History
header. This header field is intended to provide trace information
(and only trace information). For instance, it can be used to record
the label change when an SIO-Label header is added, modified, or
deleted by a service agent. This field can be used in other
situations as well. For instance, a gateway that translates X.400
messages to RFC 5322 mail can use this header field to record
labeling changes made while translating a message.
The SIO-Label-History header field is considered to be a trace field
as defined in Section 3.6.7 of [RFC5322].
The formal syntax of the SIO-Label-History header is the same as the
SIO-Label, but with the following parameters:
o change - one of "add", "replace", "delete".
o changed-by - contains a string identifying the agent, commonly the
agent's fully qualified domain name.
o changed-at - contains a date-time production, as specified in
[RFC5322], representing the date and time the header was
rewritten.
o changed-comment - contains a string containing a comment.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
o marking, fgcolor, bgcolor, type, label - records the message's
label information prior to adding, modifying, or deleting SIO-
Label, using the same parameter syntax used for SIO-Label. These
parameters are absent when the change action is "add".
o new-marking, new-fgcolor, new-bgcolor, new-type, new-label -
records the message's label information after adding, modifying,
or deleting SIO-Label, using the same parameter syntax used for
corresponding SIO-Label parameters. These parameters are absent
when the change type is "delete".
The header field SHALL minimally contain the "change", "changed-by",
and "changed-at" parameters.
This header field can be extended to include additional parameters by
future documents formally updating (or replacing) this document.
Each message can contain zero or more SIO-Label-History header
fields. All SIO-Label-History header fields should immediately
follow the SIO-Label header field, if any, and be grouped together.
Additional SIO-Label-History header fields should be added
immediately preceding any existing SIO-Label-History header fields.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
SIO Label History Add, Modify, Delete Example:
SIO-Label-History: marking="EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL";
fgcolor=black; bgcolor=red;
type=":xml";
label*0="PFNlY0xhYmVsIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vZXhhbX";
label*1="BsZS5jb20vc2VjLWxhYmVsLzAiPjxQb2xpY3lJ";
label*2="ZGVudGlmaWVyIFVSST0idXJuOm9pZDoxLjEiLz";
label*3="48Q2xhc3NpZmljYXRpb24+MzwvQ2xhc3NpZmlj";
label*4="YXRpb24+PC9TZWNMYWJlbD4=";
change=delete;
changed-by="delete.example.com";
changed-at="18 Feb 2013 9:24 PDT";
changed-comment="delete"
SIO-Label-History: marking="EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL";
fgcolor=black; bgcolor=red;
type=":ess"; label="MQYGASkCAQM=";
new-marking="EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL";
new-fgcolor=black; new-bgcolor=red;
new-type=":xml";
new-label*0="PFNlY0xhYmVsIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vZXhhbX";
new-label*1="BsZS5jb20vc2VjLWxhYmVsLzAiPjxQb2xpY3lJ";
new-label*2="ZGVudGlmaWVyIFVSST0idXJuOm9pZDoxLjEiLz";
new-label*3="48Q2xhc3NpZmljYXRpb24+MzwvQ2xhc3NpZmlj";
new-label*4="YXRpb24+PC9TZWNMYWJlbD4=";
change=replace;
changed-by="modify.example.net";
changed-at="18 Feb 2013 8:24 PDT";
changed-comment="replaced with XML variant"
SIO-Label-History: new-marking="EXAMPLE CONFIDENTIAL";
new-fgcolor=black; new-bgcolor=red;
new-type=":ess"; new-label="MQYGASkCAQM=";
change=add;
changed-by="add.example.net";
changed-at="18 Feb 2013 7:24 PDT";
changed-comment="added label"
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
6. IANA Considerations
The SIO-Label and SIO-Label-History header fields have been
registered in the "Provisional Message Header Field Registry" in
accordance with [RFC3864].
Header field name: SIO-Label
Applicable protocol: mail [RFC5322]
Status: provisional
Author/change controller: Kurt Zeilenga (kurt.zeilenga@isode.com)
Specification document(s): RFC 7444
Header field name: SIO-Label-History
Applicable protocol: mail [RFC5322]
Status: provisional
Author/change controller: Kurt Zeilenga (kurt.zeilenga@isode.com)
Specification document(s): RFC 7444
7. Security Considerations
Sensitive information should be appropriately protected (whether
labeled or not). For email messages, it is generally appropriate for
the sending entity to authenticate the receiving entity and to
establish transport-level security, including protective services for
both data integrity and data confidentiality. When a receiving
entity makes authorization decisions based upon assertions of the
sending entity, including assertions of identity, it is generally
appropriate for the receiving entity to authenticate the sending
entity.
This document provides a facility for expressing the sensitivity of
an email message. The mere expression of actual sensitivity
generally does not elevate the sensitivity of the message; however,
expressions of sensitivities can themselves be regarded as sensitive
information. For instance, a marking of "BLACK PROJECT RESTRICTED"
could disclose the existence of a sensitivity project.
The SIO-Label header field expresses the sensitivity of the whole
message, including the header and body. This document does not
provide a means to express the sensitivity of portions of an email
message, such as the possibly different sensitivities of various MIME
parts that the message may be composed of. The approach used in this
document favors simplicity and ease of use (i.e., a single expression
of sensitivity) over the complexity and difficulty of marking and
labeling portions of a message.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
The expressed sensitivity can be used in determining how to handle a
message. For instance, the value of the SIO-Label header field (or
lack thereof) can be used to determine if it is appropriate to be
forwarded to a particular entity and, if so, what minimum security
services ought to be used in the forwarding exchange. The mechanism
for determining how to handle a message-based expressed sensitivity
is beyond the scope of this document.
The actual content may have more or less sensitivity than indicated
by the security label. Agents should avoid lowering security
requirements for message exchange with a particular entity based upon
conveyed sensitivity.
This protocol does not itself provide message-signing services, such
as used in providing message integrity protection, non-repudiation,
and binding of attributes (such as the security label to the
message). While it possible that this protocol could be used with a
general message-signing service, this document does not detail such
use.
While security label and display marking parameters are expected to
express the same sensitivity, nothing in this specification ensures
that the security label and display marking values express the same
sensitivity. For instance, an MUA could submit a message that
contains a security label that expresses one sensitivity and a
display marking with a different sensitivity, and by doing so,
possibly cause an SA to inappropriately handle the message. It is
generally appropriate for each SA using the SIO-Label values to
determine if the security label and display marking values express
the same sensitivity and, if not, take appropriate action (such as
rejecting the message).
This document also provides a facility for expressing changes to the
label of a message. This is intended to be used for trace purposes
only. It is noted that the SIO-Label-History header field can
include sensitive information and, as such, can be removed from the
message when its inclusion would result in disclosure of
inappropriate information.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[CSS3-Color] Celik, T. and C. Lilley, "CSS3 Color Module",
W3C Candidate Recommendation
CR-css3-color-20030514, May 2003,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2231>.
[RFC2634] Hoffman, P., Ed., "Enhanced Security Services for
S/MIME", RFC 2634, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2634>.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
September 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
[X.411] ITU-T, "Message Handling Systems (MHS) - Message
Transfer System: Abstract Service Definition and
Procedures", ITU-T Recommendation X.411, June 1999.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
[X.690] ITU-T, "ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic
Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T
Recommendation X.690, November 2008.
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E.,
and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
(Fifth Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xml-20081126,
November 2008,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC0822] Crocker, D., "STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET
TEXT MESSAGES", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc822>.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
[X.841] ITU-T, "Security information objects for access
control", ITU-T Recommendation X.841, October 2000.
[XEP258] Zeilenga, K., "XEP-0258: Security Labels in XMPP", XEP
XMPP Extension Protocols, April 2013.
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 15]
RFC 7444 Security Labels in Internet Email February 2015
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the review, comment, and text provided by
community members, including Dave Cridland, Brad Hards, Russ Housley,
Steve Kille, Graeme Lunt, Alan Ross, Jim Schaad, and David Wilson.
Authors' Addresses
Kurt Zeilenga
Isode Limited
EMail: Kurt.Zeilenga@isode.com
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Limited
14 Castle Mews
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2NP
United Kingdom
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
Zeilenga & Melnikov Informational [Page 16]