draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-07.txt   draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-08.txt 
Using TLS in Applications D. Margolis Using TLS in Applications D. Margolis
Internet-Draft Google, Inc Internet-Draft Google, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track A. Brotman Intended status: Standards Track A. Brotman
Expires: February 1, 2018 Comcast, Inc Expires: February 16, 2018 Comcast, Inc
B. Ramakrishnan B. Ramakrishnan
Yahoo!, Inc Yahoo!, Inc
J. Jones J. Jones
Microsoft, Inc Microsoft, Inc
M. Risher M. Risher
Google, Inc Google, Inc
July 31, 2017 August 15, 2017
SMTP TLS Reporting SMTP TLS Reporting
draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-07 draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-08
Abstract Abstract
A number of protocols exist for establishing encrypted channels A number of protocols exist for establishing encrypted channels
between SMTP Mail Transfer Agents, including STARTTLS [RFC3207], DANE between SMTP Mail Transfer Agents, including STARTTLS [RFC3207], DANE
[RFC6698], and MTA-STS (TODO: Add ref). These protocols can fail due [RFC6698], and MTA-STS (TODO: Add ref). These protocols can fail due
to misconfiguration or active attack, leading to undelivered messages to misconfiguration or active attack, leading to undelivered messages
or delivery over unencrypted or unauthenticated channels. This or delivery over unencrypted or unauthenticated channels. This
document describes a reporting mechanism and format by which sending document describes a reporting mechanism and format by which sending
systems can share statistics and specific information about potential systems can share statistics and specific information about potential
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 1, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 47 skipping to change at page 2, line 47
4.3.3. General Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3.3. General Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.4. Transient Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3.4. Transient Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. JSON Report Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. JSON Report Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Report Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Report Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Report Filename . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Report Filename . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Email Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3. Email Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.1. Example Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3.1. Example Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. HTTPS Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4. HTTPS Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Delivery Retry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.5. Delivery Retry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.6. Metadata Variances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Message headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1. Message headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Report Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2. Report Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. application/tlsrpt+json Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.3. application/tlsrpt+json Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. application/tlsrpt+gz Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.4. application/tlsrpt+gzip Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.5. STARTTLS Validation Result Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.5. STARTTLS Validation Result Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Appendix 1: Example Reporting Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Appendix 1: Example Reporting Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Report using MAILTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.1. Report using MAILTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Report using HTTPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.2. Report using HTTPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Appendix 2: Example JSON Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Appendix 2: Example JSON Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The STARTTLS extension to SMTP [RFC3207] allows SMTP clients and The STARTTLS extension to SMTP [RFC3207] allows SMTP clients and
hosts to establish secure SMTP sessions over TLS. The protocol hosts to establish secure SMTP sessions over TLS. The protocol
design is based on "Opportunistic Security" (OS) [RFC7435], which design is based on "Opportunistic Security" (OS) [RFC7435], which
maintains interoperability with clients that do not support STARTTLS maintains interoperability with clients that do not support STARTTLS
but means that any attacker who can delete parts of the SMTP session but means that any attacker who can delete parts of the SMTP session
(such as the "250 STARTTLS" response) or redirect the entire SMTP (such as the "250 STARTTLS" response) or redirect the entire SMTP
skipping to change at page 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 48
from the Policy Domain's zone, as TXT records (similar to DMARC from the Policy Domain's zone, as TXT records (similar to DMARC
policies) under the name "_smtp-tlsrpt". For example, for the Policy policies) under the name "_smtp-tlsrpt". For example, for the Policy
Domain "example.com", the recipient's TLSRPT policy can be retrieved Domain "example.com", the recipient's TLSRPT policy can be retrieved
from "_smtp-tlsrpt.example.com". from "_smtp-tlsrpt.example.com".
Policies consist of the following directives: Policies consist of the following directives:
o "v": This value MUST be equal to "TLSRPTv1". o "v": This value MUST be equal to "TLSRPTv1".
o "rua": A URI specifying the endpoint to which aggregate o "rua": A URI specifying the endpoint to which aggregate
information about policy failures should be sent (see Section 4, information about policy validation results should be sent (see
"Reporting Schema", for more information). Two URI schemes are Section 4, "Reporting Schema", for more information). Two URI
supported: "mailto" and "https". schemes are supported: "mailto" and "https". As with DMARC
[RFC7489], the policy domain can specify a comma-separated list of
URIs.
o In the case of "https", reports should be submitted via POST o In the case of "https", reports should be submitted via POST
([RFC2818]) to the specified URI. ([RFC2818]) to the specified URI. Report submitters MAY ignore
certificate validation errors when submitting reports via https.
o In the case of "mailto", reports should be submitted to the o In the case of "mailto", reports should be submitted to the
specified email address ([RFC6068]). When sending failure reports specified email address ([RFC6068]). When sending failure reports
via SMTP, sending MTAs MUST deliver reports despite any TLS- via SMTP, sending MTAs MUST deliver reports despite any TLS-
related failures. This may mean that the reports are delivered in related failures. This may mean that the reports are delivered in
the clear. the clear. Additionally, reports sent via SMTP MUST contain a
valid DKIM [RFC6376] signature by the reporting domain. Reports
lacking such a signature MUST be ignored by the recipient.
The formal definition of the "_smtp-tlsrpt" TXT record, defined using The formal definition of the "_smtp-tlsrpt" TXT record, defined using
[RFC5234], is as follows: [RFC5234], is as follows:
tlsrpt-record = tlsrpt-version *WSP field-delim *WSP tlsrpt-rua tlsrpt-record = tlsrpt-version *WSP field-delim *WSP tlsrpt-rua
[field-delim [tlsrpt-extensions]] [field-delim [tlsrpt-extensions]]
field-delim = %x3B ; ";" field-delim = %x3B ; ";"
tlsrpt-version = %x76 *WSP "=" *WSP %x54 %x4C %x53 %x52 tlsrpt-version = %x76 *WSP "=" *WSP %x54 %x4C %x53 %x52
%x50 %x54 %x76 %x31 ; "v=TLSRPTv1" %x50 %x54 %x76 %x31 ; "v=TLSRPTv1"
tlsrpt-rua = %x72 %x75 %x61 *WSP "=" *WSP tlsrpt-uri ; "rua=..." tlsrpt-rua = %x72 %x75 %x61 *WSP "=" *WSP
tlsrpt-uri *(*WSP "," *WSP tlsrpt-uri) ; "rua=..."
tlsrpt-uri = URI tlsrpt-uri = URI
; "URI" is imported from [@!RFC3986]; commas (ASCII ; "URI" is imported from [@!RFC3986]; commas (ASCII
; 0x2C) and exclamation points (ASCII 0x21) ; 0x2C) and exclamation points (ASCII 0x21)
; MUST be encoded; the numeric portion MUST fit ; MUST be encoded; the numeric portion MUST fit
; within an unsigned 64-bit integer ; within an unsigned 64-bit integer
tlsrpt-extensions = tlsrpt-extension *(field-delim tlsrpt-extension) tlsrpt-extensions = tlsrpt-extension *(field-delim tlsrpt-extension)
[field-delim] [field-delim]
; extension fields ; extension fields
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
* A unique identifier for the report * A unique identifier for the report
* The reporting date range for the report * The reporting date range for the report
o Policy, consisting of: o Policy, consisting of:
* One of the following policy types: (1) The MTA-STS policy * One of the following policy types: (1) The MTA-STS policy
applied (as a string) (2) The DANE TLSA record applied (as a applied (as a string) (2) The DANE TLSA record applied (as a
string, with each RR entry of the RRset listed and separated by string, with each RR entry of the RRset listed and separated by
a semicolon) (3) The literal string "no-policy-found", if a semicolon) (3) The literal string "no-policy-found", if
neither a TLSA nor MTA-STS policy could be found. neither a DANE nor MTA-STS policy could be found.
* The domain for which the policy is applied * The domain for which the policy is applied
* The MX host * The MX host
* An identifier for the policy (where applicable) * An identifier for the policy (where applicable)
o Aggregate counts, comprising result type, sending MTA IP, o Aggregate counts, comprising result type, sending MTA IP,
receiving MTA hostname, session count, and an optional additional receiving MTA hostname, session count, and an optional additional
information field containing a URI for recipients to review information field containing a URI for recipients to review
further information on a failure type. further information on a failure type.
Note that the failure types are non-exclusive; an aggregate report Note that the failure types are non-exclusive; an aggregate report
may contain overlapping "counts" of failure types when a single send may contain overlapping "counts" of failure types when a single send
attempt encountered multiple errors. attempt encountered multiple errors.
4.1. Report Time-frame 4.1. Report Time-frame
The report SHOULD cover a full day, from 0000-2400 UTC. This should The report SHOULD cover a full day, from 0000-2400 UTC. This should
allow for easier correlation of failure events. allow for easier correlation of failure events. To avoid a Denial of
Service against the system processing the reports, the reports should
be delivered after some delay, perhaps several hours.
4.2. Delivery Summary 4.2. Delivery Summary
4.2.1. Success Count 4.2.1. Success Count
o "success-count": This indicates that the sending MTA was able to o "success-count": This indicates that the sending MTA was able to
successfully negotiate a policy-compliant TLS connection, and successfully negotiate a policy-compliant TLS connection, and
serves to provide a "heartbeat" to receiving domains that serves to provide a "heartbeat" to receiving domains that
reporting is functional and tabulating correctly. This field reporting is functional and tabulating correctly. This field
contains an aggregate count of successful connections for the contains an aggregate count of successful connections for the
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
4.3.2. Policy Failures 4.3.2. Policy Failures
4.3.2.1. DANE-specific Policy Failures 4.3.2.1. DANE-specific Policy Failures
o "tlsa-invalid": This indicates a validation error in the TLSA o "tlsa-invalid": This indicates a validation error in the TLSA
record associated with a DANE policy. None of the records in the record associated with a DANE policy. None of the records in the
RRset were found to be valid. RRset were found to be valid.
o "dnssec-invalid": This would indicate that no valid records were o "dnssec-invalid": This would indicate that no valid records were
returned from the recursive resolver. The request returned with returned from the recursive resolver. The request returned with
SERVFAIL for the requested TLSA record. SERVFAIL for the requested TLSA record. It should be noted that
if the reporter's systems are having problems resolving
destination DNS records due to DNSSEC failures, it's possible they
will also be unable to resolve the TLSRPT record, therefore these
types of reports may be rare.
4.3.2.2. MTA-STS-specific Policy Failures 4.3.2.2. MTA-STS-specific Policy Failures
o "sts-policy-invalid": This indicates a validation error for the o "sts-policy-invalid": This indicates a validation error for the
overall MTA-STS policy. overall MTA-STS policy.
o "sts-webpki-invalid": This indicates that the MTA-STS policy could o "sts-webpki-invalid": This indicates that the MTA-STS policy could
not be authenticated using PKIX validation. not be authenticated using PKIX validation.
4.3.3. General Failures 4.3.3. General Failures
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 10, line 38
MTA-STS policy. MTA-STS policy.
o "domain": The Policy Domain is the domain against which the MTA- o "domain": The Policy Domain is the domain against which the MTA-
STS or DANE policy is defined. In the case of Internationalized STS or DANE policy is defined. In the case of Internationalized
Domain Names ([RFC5891]), the domain is the Punycode-encoded Domain Names ([RFC5891]), the domain is the Punycode-encoded
A-label ([RFC3492]) and not the U-label. A-label ([RFC3492]) and not the U-label.
o "mx-host-pattern": The pattern of MX hostnames from the applied o "mx-host-pattern": The pattern of MX hostnames from the applied
policy. It is provided as a string, and is interpreted in the policy. It is provided as a string, and is interpreted in the
same manner as the "Checking of Wildcard Certificates" rules in same manner as the "Checking of Wildcard Certificates" rules in
Section 6.4.3 of [RFC6125]. Section 6.4.3 of [RFC6125]. In the case of Internationalized
Domain Names ([RFC5891]), the domain is the Punycode-encoded
A-label ([RFC3492]) and not the U-label.
o "result-type": A value from Section 4.3, "Result Types", above. o "result-type": A value from Section 4.3, "Result Types", above.
In the case of Internationalized Domain Names ([RFC5891]), the
domain is the Punycode-encoded A-label ([RFC3492]) and not the
U-label.
o "ip-address": The IP address of the sending MTA that attempted the o "ip-address": The IP address of the sending MTA that attempted the
STARTTLS connection. It is provided as a string representation of STARTTLS connection. It is provided as a string representation of
an IPv4 (see below) or IPv6 ([RFC5952]) address in dot-decimal or an IPv4 (see below) or IPv6 ([RFC5952]) address in dot-decimal or
colon-hexadecimal notation. colon-hexadecimal notation.
o "receiving-mx-hostname": The hostname of the receiving MTA MX o "receiving-mx-hostname": The hostname of the receiving MTA MX
record with which the sending MTA attempted to negotiate a record with which the sending MTA attempted to negotiate a
STARTTLS connection. STARTTLS connection.
skipping to change at page 11, line 25 skipping to change at page 11, line 28
o "additional-info-uri": An optional URI [RFC3986] pointing to o "additional-info-uri": An optional URI [RFC3986] pointing to
additional information around the relevant "result-type". For additional information around the relevant "result-type". For
example, this URI might host the complete certificate chain example, this URI might host the complete certificate chain
presented during an attempted STARTTLS session. presented during an attempted STARTTLS session.
o "failure-reason-code": A text field to include an TLS-related o "failure-reason-code": A text field to include an TLS-related
error code or error message. error code or error message.
For report purposes, an IPv4 Address is defined as: IPv4address = For report purposes, an IPv4 Address is defined as: IPv4address =
dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet dec-octet = DIGIT dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
; 0-9 / %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99 / "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199 / "2" %x30-34 dec-octet = DIGIT ; 0-9 / %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99 / "1" 2DIGIT ;
DIGIT ; 200-249 / "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255 100-199 / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249 / "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255
5. Report Delivery 5. Report Delivery
Reports can be delivered either as an email message via SMTP or via Reports can be delivered either as an email message via SMTP or via
HTTP POST. HTTP POST.
5.1. Report Filename 5.1. Report Filename
The filename is typically constructed using the following ABNF: The filename is RECOMMENDED to be constructed using the following
ABNF:
filename = sender "!" policy-domain "!" begin-timestamp filename = sender "!" policy-domain "!" begin-timestamp
"!" end-timestamp [ "!" unique-id ] "." extension "!" end-timestamp [ "!" unique-id ] "." extension
unique-id = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT) unique-id = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT)
sender = domain ; imported from [@!RFC5321] sender = domain ; imported from [@!RFC5321]
policy-domain = domain policy-domain = domain
skipping to change at page 13, line 21 skipping to change at page 13, line 21
TLS-Report-Submitter: Sender-Domain TLS-Report-Submitter: Sender-Domain
These message headers MUST be included and should allow for easy These message headers MUST be included and should allow for easy
searching for all reports submitted by a report domain or a searching for all reports submitted by a report domain or a
particular submitter, for example in IMAP [RFC3501]: particular submitter, for example in IMAP [RFC3501]:
"s SEARCH HEADER "TLS-Report-Domain" "example.com"" "s SEARCH HEADER "TLS-Report-Domain" "example.com""
It is presumed that the aggregate reporting address will be equipped It is presumed that the aggregate reporting address will be equipped
to process new message header fields and extract MIME parts with the to process new message header fields and extract MIME parts with the
prescribed media type and filename, and ignore the rest. prescribed media type and filename, and ignore the rest. These
additional headers SHOULD be included in the DKIM [RFC6376] signature
for the message.
The [RFC5322].Subject field for individual report submissions SHOULD The [RFC5322].Subject field for report submissions SHOULD conform to
conform to the following ABNF: the following ABNF:
tlsrpt-subject = %s"Report" FWS ; "Report" tlsrpt-subject = %s"Report" FWS ; "Report"
%s"Domain:" FWS ; "Domain:" %s"Domain:" FWS ; "Domain:"
domain-name FWS ; per RFC6376 domain-name FWS ; per RFC6376
%s"Submitter:" FWS ; "Submitter:" %s"Submitter:" FWS ; "Submitter:"
domain-name FWS ; per RFC6376 domain-name FWS ; per RFC6376
%s"Report-ID:" FWS ; "Report-ID: %s"Report-ID:" FWS ; "Report-ID:
"<" id-left "@" id-right ">" ; per RFC5322 "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" ; per RFC5322
[CFWS] ; per RFC5322 (as with FWS) [CFWS] ; per RFC5322 (as with FWS)
skipping to change at page 14, line 46 skipping to change at page 14, line 46
------=_NextPart_000_024E_01CC9B0A.AFE54C00-- ------=_NextPart_000_024E_01CC9B0A.AFE54C00--
... ...
Note that, when sending failure reports via SMTP, sending MTAs MUST Note that, when sending failure reports via SMTP, sending MTAs MUST
NOT honor MTA-STS or DANE TLSA failures. NOT honor MTA-STS or DANE TLSA failures.
5.4. HTTPS Transport 5.4. HTTPS Transport
The report MAY be delivered by POST to HTTPS. If compressed, the The report MAY be delivered by POST to HTTPS. If compressed, the
report should use the media type "application/tlsrpt+gzip", and report SHOULD use the media type "application/tlsrpt+gzip", and
"application/tlsrpt+json" otherwise (see section Section 6, "IANA "application/tlsrpt+json" otherwise (see section Section 6, "IANA
Considerations"). Considerations").
5.5. Delivery Retry 5.5. Delivery Retry
In the event of a delivery failure, regardless of the delivery In the event of a delivery failure, regardless of the delivery
method, a sender SHOULD attempt redelivery for up to 24hrs after the method, a sender SHOULD attempt redelivery for up to 24hrs after the
initial attempt. As previously stated the reports are optional, so initial attempt. As previously stated the reports are optional, so
while it is ideal to attempt redelivery, it is not required. If while it is ideal to attempt redelivery, it is not required. If
multiple retries are attempted, they should be on a logarithmic multiple retries are attempted, ideally they would be on a
scale. logarithmic scale.
5.6. Metadata Variances
As stated above, there are a variable number of ways to declare
information about the data therein. If it should be the case that
these objects were to disagree, then the report data contained within
the JSON body MUST be considered the authoritative source for those
data elements.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The following are the IANA considerations discussed in this document. The following are the IANA considerations discussed in this document.
6.1. Message headers 6.1. Message headers
Below is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Permanent Below is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Permanent
Message Header Field registration information per [RFC3864]. Message Header Field registration information per [RFC3864].
skipping to change at page 16, line 47 skipping to change at page 17, line 4
Magic number(s): n/a Magic number(s): n/a
File extension(s): ".json" File extension(s): ".json"
Macintosh file type code(s): n/a Macintosh file type code(s): n/a
Person & email address to contact for further information: See Person & email address to contact for further information: See
Authors' Addresses section. Authors' Addresses section.
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: n/a Restrictions on usage: n/a
Author: See Authors' Addresses section. Author: See Authors' Addresses section.
Change controller: Internet Engineering Task Force Change controller: Internet Engineering Task Force
(mailto:iesg@ietf.org). (mailto:iesg@ietf.org).
6.4. application/tlsrpt+gz Media Type 6.4. application/tlsrpt+gzip Media Type
+-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+ +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Subtype | File extn | Specification | | Type | Subtype | File extn | Specification |
+-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+ +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+
| application | tlsrpt+gzip | .gz | Section 5.3 | | application | tlsrpt+gzip | .gz | Section 5.3 |
+-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+ +-------------+----------------+-------------+-------------------+
Table 2: SMTP TLS Reporting Media Type Table 2: SMTP TLS Reporting Media Type
Type name: application Type name: application
Subtype name: tlsrpt+gzip Subtype name: tlsrpt+gzip
Required parameters: n/a Required parameters: n/a
Optional parameters: n/a Optional parameters: n/a
Encoding considerations: Encoding considerations are identical to Encoding considerations: Binary
those specified for the "application/json" media type. See
[RFC7493].
Security considerations: Security considerations relating to SMTP TLS Security considerations: Security considerations relating to SMTP TLS
Reporting are discussed in Section 7. Reporting are discussed in Section 7.
Interoperability considerations: This document specifies format of Interoperability considerations: This document specifies format of
conforming messages and the interpretation thereof. conforming messages and the interpretation thereof.
Published specification: Section 5.3 of this document. Published specification: Section 5.3 of this document.
Applications that use this media type: Mail User Agents (MUA) and Applications that use this media type: Mail User Agents (MUA) and
skipping to change at page 20, line 21 skipping to change at page 20, line 21
"report-id": "5065427c-23d3-47ca-b6e0-946ea0e8c4be", "report-id": "5065427c-23d3-47ca-b6e0-946ea0e8c4be",
"policy": { "policy": {
"policy-type": "sts", "policy-type": "sts",
"policy-string": "{ \"version\": \"STSv1\",\"mode\": \"report\", \"mx\": [\".mail.company-y.com\"], \"max_age\": 86400 }", "policy-string": "{ \"version\": \"STSv1\",\"mode\": \"report\", \"mx\": [\".mail.company-y.com\"], \"max_age\": 86400 }",
"policy-domain": "company-y.com", "policy-domain": "company-y.com",
"mx-host": ".mail.company-y.com" "mx-host": ".mail.company-y.com"
}, },
"summary": { "summary": {
"total-successful-session-count": 5326, "total-successful-session-count": 5326,
"total-failure-session-count": 303 "total-failure-session-count": 303
} },
"failure-details": [{ "failure-details": [{
"result-type": "certificate-expired", "result-type": "certificate-expired",
"sending-mta-ip": "98.136.216.25", "sending-mta-ip": "98.136.216.25",
"receiving-mx-hostname": "mx1.mail.company-y.com", "receiving-mx-hostname": "mx1.mail.company-y.com",
"failed-session-count": 100 "failed-session-count": 100
}, { }, {
"result-type": "starttls-not-supported", "result-type": "starttls-not-supported",
"sending-mta-ip": "98.22.33.99", "sending-mta-ip": "98.22.33.99",
"receiving-mx-hostname": "mx2.mail.company-y.com", "receiving-mx-hostname": "mx2.mail.company-y.com",
"failed-session-count": 200, "failed-session-count": 200,
"additional-information": "hxxps://reports.company-x.com/ "additional-information": "hxxps://reports.company-x.com/
report_info?id=5065427c-23d3#StarttlsNotSupported" report_info?id=5065427c-23d3#StarttlsNotSupported"
}, { }, {
"result-type: "validation-failure", "result-type": "validation-failure",
"sending-mta-ip": "47.97.15.2", "sending-mta-ip": "47.97.15.2",
"receiving-mx-hostname: "mx-backup.mail.company-y.com", "receiving-mx-hostname": "mx-backup.mail.company-y.com",
"failed-session-count": 3, "failed-session-count": 3,
"failure-error-code": "X509_V_ERR_PROXY_PATH_LENGTH_EXCEEDED" "failure-error-code": "X509_V_ERR_PROXY_PATH_LENGTH_EXCEEDED"
}] }]
} }
Figure: Example JSON report for a messages from Company-X to Figure: Example JSON report for a messages from Company-X to
Company-Y, where 100 sessions were attempted to Company Y servers Company-Y, where 100 sessions were attempted to Company Y servers
with an expired certificate and 200 sessions were attempted to with an expired certificate and 200 sessions were attempted to
Company Y servers that did not successfully respond to the "STARTTLS" Company Y servers that did not successfully respond to the "STARTTLS"
command. Additionally 3 sessions failed due to command. Additionally 3 sessions failed due to
"X509_V_ERR_PROXY_PATH_LENGTH_EXCEEDED". "X509_V_ERR_PROXY_PATH_LENGTH_EXCEEDED".
10. Normative References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, DOI 10.17487/ [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2818, May 2000, RFC2818, May 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, DOI 10.17487/RFC3207,
February 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3207>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode [RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3492, DOI 10.17487/RFC3492, March 2003, (IDNA)", RFC 3492, DOI 10.17487/RFC3492, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3492>.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/ Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5234, January 2008, RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
skipping to change at page 22, line 30 skipping to change at page 22, line 21
URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010, URI Scheme", RFC 6068, DOI 10.17487/RFC6068, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>. 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.
[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>.
[RFC6522] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "The Multipart/Report Media Type for [RFC6522] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "The Multipart/Report Media Type for
the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", STD the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", STD
73, RFC 6522, DOI 10.17487/RFC6522, January 2012, 73, RFC 6522, DOI 10.17487/RFC6522, January 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6522>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6522>.
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication [RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>. 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>. 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493, DOI
10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, DOI 10.17487/RFC3207,
February 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3207>.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC7435] Dukhovni, V., "Opportunistic Security: Some Protection [RFC7435] Dukhovni, V., "Opportunistic Security: Some Protection
Most of the Time", RFC 7435, DOI 10.17487/RFC7435, Most of the Time", RFC 7435, DOI 10.17487/RFC7435,
December 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7435>. December 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7435>.
[RFC7469] Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning [RFC7469] Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
Extension for HTTP", RFC 7469, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469, April Extension for HTTP", RFC 7469, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469, April
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469>. 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469>.
[RFC7489] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based [RFC7489] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015, (DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493, DOI
10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Daniel Margolis Daniel Margolis
Google, Inc Google, Inc
Email: dmargolis (at) google.com Email: dmargolis (at) google.com
Alexander Brotman Alexander Brotman
Comcast, Inc Comcast, Inc
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
57 lines changed or deleted 87 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/