<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.20 (Ruby 3.0.2) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-chuang-relay-flow-identifier-01" category="exp" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.16.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Relay Flow Identifier">Relay Flow Identifier</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-chuang-relay-flow-identifier-01"/>
    <author fullname="Weihaw Chuang">
      <organization>Google, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>weihaw@google.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2023" month="January" day="19"/>
    <workgroup>Independent Stream</workgroup>
    <keyword>DKIM</keyword>
    <keyword>ARC</keyword>
    <keyword>Relay</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>To prevent spammers from using relay forwarding, we propose to identify relay flows.  We do this by having relays categorize their authenticated traffic flows and publish to receivers identifiers associated with those flows.  This is a unique, persistent over time, relay flow identifier name that is secured by some digital signature.  Receivers can use this identifier to help categorize traffic through the relay and use that identifier to apply fine-grain anti-abuse policies instead of on the entire traffic through the relay.  This document provides a specification for DKIM (<xref target="RFC6376"/>) for originating traffic and ARC <xref target="RFC8617"/> for forwarded traffic.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Spammers utilize relays to obfuscate their identities and often to spoof some other identity with email receivers.  For example a spammer may exploit the shared tenancy vulnerability of SPF to spoof some identity as follows.  It finds a relay that hosts many different enterprise customers who include the relay's IPs in their SPF policies.  The spammer then sends traffic through the relay assuming the identity of one of those customers i.e. it spoofs the MAIL FROM identity of the victim domain. While the SPF validation (if done) of the initial send by the spammer to the relay fails, a subsequent SPF validation when forwarded to some other victim receiver from the relay will pass SPF because the IPs are contained in the victim's SPF policy.  At some point, the receiver notices the spam via the relay and wants to apply anti-abuse counter measures.  With existing authentication methods, this policy would impact all mail flows through that relay, both innocent and malicious.  A better approach would be to selectively apply anti-abuse counter measures to the spammer's flow which is what this proposal enables.  Better yet, the receiver is enabled to cluster traffic to a spammer controlled domain and apply policies scoped to what the spammers have control over.</t>
      <section anchor="terminology-and-definitions">
        <name>Terminology and Definitions</name>
        <t>Acronyms</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) <xref target="RFC8617"/> - is a protocol that is meant to resolve some of the issues for DMARC <xref target="RFC7489"/> to fix the problems that DMARC policy rejects caused by mail forwarding, and is based on DKIM, but suffers from similar issues as DKIM replay. ARC defines digital signatures and Authentication-Results by ADMD and a versioning mechanism for them.</li>
          <li>Authentication-Results <xref target="RFC8601"/>- A header containing a list of validation results and comments.</li>
          <li>
            <t>DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) <xref target="RFC6376"/>- IETF standard for the cryptographic protocol to authenticate email at the domain level and protect the integrity of messages during transit.
            </t>
            <ul spacing="normal">
              <li>DKIM replay- <xref target="RFC6376"/> section 8.6 defines a vulnerability called DKIM Replay as a spam message sent through a SMTP MTA DKIM signer, that then is sent to many more recipients, leveraging the reputation of the signer.</li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li>Sender Policy Framework (SPF) <xref target="RFC7208"/>- IETF standard for authenticating sending servers typically based on IP address.</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="relay-flow-identifier-specification">
        <name>Relay Flow Identifier Specification</name>
        <t>This specification defines an identifier name for mail traversing a relay.  Typically the relay uses password authentication such as methods provided for in <xref target="RFC4954"/> but other methods MAY be possible.  This identifier MAY also be used for authenticated forwarding flows such as mailing lists and with other authentication methods such DKIM or SPF that verify who the sender is.  Because some traffic may have originated at the relay, which traditionally may be DKIM signed, this document provides a specification for DKIM (<xref target="RFC6376"/>).  In other instances, the relay forwards traffic originated elsewhere, and these are typically not DKIM signed by the relay, so instead this document provides a specification using ARC (<xref target="RFC8617"/>).</t>
        <t>Email Service Providers can delegate relay and forwarding services to enterprise customers, typically associated with some customer domain.  Spammers utilize these features either by acting as an enterprise customer or by hijacked accounts.  This specification proposes naming flows by enterprise customers to help the email receiver with categorization and application of anti-abuse counter measures.  As some mechanisms for mail forwarding such as mailing lists are often opaque after being sent and problematic for debug and abuse protection, this offers a naming scheme to help identify those mechanisms.</t>
        <section anchor="flow-identification">
          <name>Flow Identification</name>
          <t>The relaying service choosing to use this specification MUST categorize and name relayed traffic flows such that receivers can do anti-abuse analysis upon them if necessary.  In order for the identifier to be effective, it SHOULD be persistent in time and uniquely named across all flows through the relay.  As relayed traffic flow is often associated with a delegated domain, the first part of the identifier MUST either include a domain associated url-safe base64 (<xref target="RFC4648"/>) token, or be empty if no such delegated domain is present.  It MAY include a local part url-safe base64 (<xref target="RFC4648"/>) token after the domain token and separated by a period '.'.  This local part token can help describe the mail forwarding mechanism.  Combined the domain token and the optional local token form the relay flow identifier name.  If a message is associated with more than one flow, the relay SHOULD select the more specific flow based on local policy.  That name MUST not be any relay internal name though MAY be a secure cryptographic hash of such.  Also that name MUST not contain or be associated with any Personally Identifiable Information (PII).  The parser should ignore commas '+' whose use may be specified in the future.</t>
          <t>Example valid names:</t>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
0123456789
0123456789.abcdwxyz
.abcdwxyz
]]></artwork>
        </section>
        <section anchor="dkim">
          <name>DKIM</name>
          <t>This proposes a new DKIM <xref target="RFC8617"/> DKIM-Signature tag-value that identifies the presence of a relay flow and a relay flow identifier name.  The tag is defined "rfid", while the value name consists of a domain url-safe base64 token and the optional local url-safe base64 token separated by a period.   The token parsers MUST ignore a reserved plus that may be further specified in the future.</t>
          <t>Example:</t>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=example.com; s=20230116; h=...; bh=...; b....=; rfid=0123456789.abcdwxyz
]]></artwork>
        </section>
        <section anchor="arc">
          <name>ARC</name>
          <t>This proposes a new ARC <xref target="RFC8617"/> ARC-Authentication-Result defined method (<xref target="RFC8601"/>) that identifies the presence of a relay flow and its property that identifies a relay flow identifier name.  The defined method is "relay", which when present, takes a single result value of "pass" that indicates the relay was authenticated.   The relay method will have a propspec tag-value with a policy ptype with a "id" property i.e "policy.id" that takes a single token value.  That token value consists of a domain url-safe base64 token and the optional local url-safe base64 token separated by a period.  The token parsers MUST ignore a reserved plus that may be further specified in the future.</t>
          <t>Example:</t>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; auth.example.com; relay=pass (comments) policy.id=0123456789.abcdwxyz
]]></artwork>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="privacy-considerations">
        <name>Privacy Considerations</name>
      </section>
      <section anchor="security-considerations">
        <name>Security Considerations</name>
      </section>
      <section anchor="iana-considerations">
        <name>IANA Considerations</name>
        <t>This document has no IANA actions yet.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC6376">
        <front>
          <title>DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures</title>
          <author fullname="D. Crocker" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Crocker">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="T. Hansen" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Hansen">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="M. Kucherawy" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Kucherawy">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="September" year="2011"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or organization that owns the signing domain to claim some responsibility for a message by associating the domain with the message.  This can be an author's organization, an operational relay, or one of their agents.  DKIM separates the question of the identity of the Signer of the message from the purported author of the message.  Assertion of responsibility is validated through a cryptographic signature and by querying the Signer's domain directly to retrieve the appropriate public key.  Message transit from author to recipient is through relays that typically make no substantive change to the message content and thus preserve the DKIM signature.</t>
            <t>This memo obsoletes RFC 4871 and RFC 5672.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="STD" value="76"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6376"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6376"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8617">
        <front>
          <title>The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="K. Andersen" initials="K." surname="Andersen">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="B. Long" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Long">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="S. Blank" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Blank">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="M. Kucherawy" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Kucherawy">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="July" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol provides an authenticated "chain of custody" for a message, allowing each entity that handles the message to see what entities handled it before and what the message's authentication assessment was at each step in the handling.</t>
            <t>ARC allows Internet Mail Handlers to attach assertions of message authentication assessment to individual messages.  As messages traverse ARC-enabled Internet Mail Handlers, additional ARC assertions can be attached to messages to form ordered sets of ARC assertions that represent the authentication assessment at each step of the message-handling paths.</t>
            <t>ARC-enabled Internet Mail Handlers can process sets of ARC assertions to inform message disposition decisions, identify Internet Mail Handlers that might break existing authentication mechanisms, and convey original authentication assessments across trust boundaries.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8617"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8617"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7489">
        <front>
          <title>Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)</title>
          <author fullname="M. Kucherawy" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Kucherawy">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="E. Zwicky" initials="E." role="editor" surname="Zwicky">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="March" year="2015"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating organization can express domain-level policies and preferences for message validation, disposition, and reporting, that a mail-receiving organization can use to improve mail handling.</t>
            <t>Originators of Internet Mail need to be able to associate reliable and authenticated domain identifiers with messages, communicate policies about messages that use those identifiers, and report about mail using those identifiers.  These abilities have several benefits: Receivers can provide feedback to Domain Owners about the use of their domains; this feedback can provide valuable insight about the management of internal operations and the presence of external domain name abuse.</t>
            <t>DMARC does not produce or encourage elevated delivery privilege of authenticated email.  DMARC is a mechanism for policy distribution that enables increasingly strict handling of messages that fail authentication checks, ranging from no action, through altered delivery, up to message rejection.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7489"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7489"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8601">
        <front>
          <title>Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status</title>
          <author fullname="M. Kucherawy" initials="M." surname="Kucherawy">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="May" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document specifies a message header field called "Authentication-Results" for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts.  Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions.</t>
            <t>This document obsoletes RFC 7601.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8601"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8601"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7208">
        <front>
          <title>Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1</title>
          <author fullname="S. Kitterman" initials="S." surname="Kitterman">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="April" year="2014"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Email on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways.  In particular, existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending host can use as the "MAIL FROM" of a message or the domain given on the SMTP HELO/EHLO commands.  This document describes version 1 of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby ADministrative Management Domains (ADMDs) can explicitly authorize the hosts that are allowed to use their domain names, and a receiving host can check such authorization.</t>
            <t>This document obsoletes RFC 4408.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7208"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7208"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4954">
        <front>
          <title>SMTP Service Extension for Authentication</title>
          <author fullname="R. Siemborski" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Siemborski">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <author fullname="A. Melnikov" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Melnikov">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="July" year="2007"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines a Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) extension whereby an SMTP client may indicate an authentication mechanism to the server, perform an authentication protocol exchange, and optionally negotiate a security layer for subsequent protocol interactions during this session.  This extension includes a profile of the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) for SMTP.</t>
            <t>This document obsoletes RFC 2554.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4954"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4954"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4648">
        <front>
          <title>The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings</title>
          <author fullname="S. Josefsson" initials="S." surname="Josefsson">
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date month="October" year="2006"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes the commonly used base 64, base 32, and base 16 encoding schemes.  It also discusses the use of line-feeds in encoded data, use of padding in encoded data, use of non-alphabet characters in encoded data, use of different encoding alphabets, and canonical encodings.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4648"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4648"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <section anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>Thanks goes to Emil Gustafsson for suggesting a DKIM specification.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
