Re: Email Web of Trust - Defining the metrics

Yakov,
    I think we should try to capture the antispam counters as SNMP 
Management Information objects (SMIv2), we should define access to these 
counters using SNMPv3, and we should consider shortcomings and alternatives 
to SMIv2 and to SNMPv3.  For example, can IPsec be used for providing 
privacy and antidos as well as confidentiality and integrity to SNMP 
protocol operations?  Is the SNMP management information (SMI) definition 
suitable for what we need or are there better ways to represent the 
information?

   This work should come after a description of one or two applications 
that can use the counters such as a trusted reputation service.  I expect 
we would undertake this work only if we are sure that it can support a 
trusted reputation service using, for example, a web of trust model where 
members trust other members to maintain counter integrity.

   This work could be considered as a formal RG work item and intended to 
be published as an Experimental RFC (such RGs publish on Experimental or 
Informational RFCs).  I would be willing to author or co-author the 
document.  I have previously done an SNMPv1 MIB using an SMIv2 compiler, 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2959.txt

Mark
At 09:44 PM 3/15/2004, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>Mark Baugher wrote:
>>>which is extensible via something like the MIB mechanism AND a base 
>>>MIB-like RFC defining neutral data points such as length of time MTA is 
>>>transmitting, average volume, etc. This way everyone can use the base 
>>>neutral data points and extend the web to include other things they 
>>>might be interested in.
>>
>>I guess we can start defining it.  The antispam MIB is wide open and can 
>>be any number of things.  In the simplest case, it might be the number of 
>>times an MUA explicitly rejected a message from a bona fide source 
>>following user inspection.  There are all sorts of attacks to be 
>>considered including collusion among users, Sybils, etc.  And there is 
>>the problem of ensuring sufficient system integrity such that false 
>>positives don't smirch the reputation of mail senders.
>
>Are we talking about defining an SNMP MIB, or creating a similar MIB-like 
>mechanism?
>
>Also, while SNMP MIBs can be good for metrics, I am not sure if passing 
>around trust information via SNMP will work. Of course, I am not an expert 
>in SNMP at all so I will have to do some more reading on this.
>
>>
>>>As a side note, I am not a big expert in SNMP but in theory can it be 
>>>used to provide information about MTAs?
>>
>>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2789.html
>
>I really really never expected something like this to exist. But it 
>does  although I wonder how often it is actually used. Once again, I am 
>very impressed by the wealth of technical information in the RFCs and the IETF.
>
>Yakov