As promised earlier, a personal internet draft to declare a NOMAIL policy. It 
is four pages as expected.

NB: This is not a working group submission as NOMAIL is out of scope. The draft 
does however demonstrate a number of points that need to be considered in the 
SSP draft.

In particular the IANA requirements should specify that there be a tag registry 
for SSP policy tags.
Title: NOMAIL: DKIM Policy Specification for No MAIL
 TOC 
Internet Engineering Task ForceP. Hallam-Baker
Internet-DraftVeriSign Inc
Intended status: InformationalJune 29, 2007
Expires: December 31, 2007 


NOMAIL: DKIM Policy Specification for No MAIL
draft-hallambaker-nomail-00

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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.”

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2007.

Copyright Notice

Copyright © The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

A DKIM Policy statement is defined for the policy 'this zone never sends mail'.



Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
    1.1.  Requirements Language
2.  NoMail Policy
3.  Acknowledgements
4.  IANA Considerations
5.  Security Considerations
6.  Normative References
§  Author's Address
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements




 TOC 

1.  Introduction



 TOC 

1.1.  Requirements Language

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 RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].



 TOC 

2.  NoMail Policy

The NOMAIL policy is declared in an SSP record using the tag "NOMAIL".

No parameters are specified for the NOMAIL policy.

If specified the NOMAIL policy states that no mail is sent from the domain to which it is attached. All mail that purports to have been sent by that domain MUST be considered suspicious.



 TOC 

3.  Acknowledgements

The ideas in this document arose from extensive discussions with the DKIM working group, in particular Hector Santos and others.



 TOC 

4.  IANA Considerations

This document requests allocation of a DKIM SSP tag 'NOMAIL'



 TOC 

5.  Security Considerations

The NOMAIL policy MAY be employed to perform a denial of service attack.



 TOC 

6. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).


 TOC 

Author's Address

  Phillip Hallam-Baker
  VeriSign Inc
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 TOC 

Full Copyright Statement

Intellectual Property

Acknowledgment



Internet Engineering Task Force                          P. Hallam-Baker
Internet-Draft                                              VeriSign Inc
Intended status: Informational                             June 29, 2007
Expires: December 31, 2007


             NOMAIL: DKIM Policy Specification for No MAIL
                      draft-hallambaker-nomail-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   A DKIM Policy statement is defined for the policy 'this zone never
   sends mail'.









Hallam-Baker            Expires December 31, 2007               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             DKIM NOMAIL Policy                  June 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  NoMail Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 5








































Hallam-Baker            Expires December 31, 2007               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             DKIM NOMAIL Policy                  June 2007


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


2.  NoMail Policy

   The NOMAIL policy is declared in an SSP record using the tag
   "NOMAIL".

   No parameters are specified for the NOMAIL policy.

   If specified the NOMAIL policy states that no mail is sent from the
   domain to which it is attached.  All mail that purports to have been
   sent by that domain MUST be considered suspicious.


3.  Acknowledgements

   The ideas in this document arose from extensive discussions with the
   DKIM working group, in particular Hector Santos and others.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests allocation of a DKIM SSP tag 'NOMAIL'


5.  Security Considerations

   The NOMAIL policy MAY be employed to perform a denial of service
   attack.


6.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.









Hallam-Baker            Expires December 31, 2007               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             DKIM NOMAIL Policy                  June 2007


Author's Address

   Phillip Hallam-Baker
   VeriSign Inc

   Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]













































Hallam-Baker            Expires December 31, 2007               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             DKIM NOMAIL Policy                  June 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Hallam-Baker            Expires December 31, 2007               [Page 5]


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to