Network Working Group R. Ehlers Internet-Draft PastWipe S.L. Intended status: Standards Track 2 September 2025 Expires: 6 March 2026 Reputation Security Protocol (RepSec) draft-ehlers-repsec-00 Abstract The Reputation Security Protocol (RepSec) defines a lightweight, extensible, and secure method for exchanging digital reputation and security-state information across the Internet. RepSec follows the design philosophy of SMTP (simplicity) and SNMP (extensibility). Entities can register, verify, remove, and audit reputation data in an interoperable and standardized way. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 March 2026. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Ehlers Expires 6 March 2026 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RepSec September 2025 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1. Transport and Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2. Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2.1. REGISTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2.2. VERIFY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2.3. REMOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2.4. AUDIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2.5. PING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.3. Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.4. Example Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. Licensing and IPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction Current approaches to reputation and security metadata are fragmented and proprietary. RepSec provides a standardized protocol for secure, interoperable exchange of this information. The protocol is designed to be simple to implement, secure by default, and extensible for future needs, drawing on SMTP's command/response model and SNMP's extensible object framework. Goals: - Simple, JSON-based message exchange - Secure by default (TLS mandatory) - Extensible command set and object schemas - Open and free to implement Ehlers Expires 6 March 2026 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RepSec September 2025 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. Protocol Overview RepSec uses a client/server request–response model. Transport: TCP with mandatory TLS (TLS 1.2 or later; TLS 1.3 SHOULD be supported). Port: TBD by IANA (proposed: 4655). Encoding: UTF-8 JSON for commands and responses. Status Codes: Numeric, modeled after SMTP. 4. Terminology Client: entity initiating RepSec commands. Server: entity providing RepSec services. Entity: subject of registration (domain, IP, userID, organization, etc.). Message: JSON-encoded RepSec command or response. Extension: optional module that defines new commands and/or schemas. 5. Protocol Elements 5.1. Transport and Encoding All RepSec traffic MUST be transmitted over TLS. Servers SHOULD support TLS 1.3. Messages MUST be encoded as UTF-8 JSON objects. If compression is used, it MUST be negotiated at the TLS layer; TLS record compression is NOT RECOMMENDED. 5.2. Commands The minimum interoperable command set is shown below. Commands are JSON objects with a "command" field and command-specific parameters. 5.2.1. REGISTER Registers an entity with RepSec. { "command": "REGISTER", "entity": "example.com", "type": "domain", "auth": "token123" } Ehlers Expires 6 March 2026 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RepSec September 2025 5.2.2. VERIFY Verifies authenticity of registered data. { "command": "VERIFY", "entity": "example.com" } 5.2.3. REMOVE Removes registered data. { "command": "REMOVE", "entity": "example.com" } 5.2.4. AUDIT Retrieves entity history (audit log). { "command": "AUDIT", "entity": "example.com" } 5.2.5. PING Checks server availability and round-trip. { "command": "PING" } 5.3. Responses Responses MUST include a numeric status code and a human-readable message. Additional fields are allowed. 200 OK Command succeeded 400 BAD REQUEST Syntax error or missing parameters 401 UNAUTHORIZED Authentication required or failed 403 FORBIDDEN Command not permitted 404 NOT FOUND No such entity or resource 409 CONFLICT State conflict (e.g., already registered) 429 TOO MANY REQUESTS Rate limiting in effect 500 SERVER ERROR Internal processing error Example: { "status": 200, "message": "Entity registered successfully" } 5.4. Example Session Ehlers Expires 6 March 2026 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RepSec September 2025 C: { "command": "REGISTER", "entity": "example.com", "type": "domain" } S: { "status": 200, "message": "Entity registered successfully" } C: { "command": "VERIFY", "entity": "example.com" } S: { "status": 200, "verified": true, "last_updated": "2025-09-02T10:00:00Z" } 6. Security Considerations All RepSec sessions MUST use TLS with server authentication; mutual authentication via client certificates or token-based schemes is RECOMMENDED. Implementations MUST provide replay protection (e.g., timestamps and nonces) and SHOULD employ rate limiting and abuse detection. Privacy by design: servers MUST NOT expose unnecessary metadata and SHOULD minimize data retention. 7. Extensibility RepSec supports extensions similar to SMTP EHLO and SNMP MIBs. Extensions MAY define new commands and/or JSON schemas (RepSec Object Definitions). Servers SHOULD advertise supported extensions during capability discovery (future work). 8. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign a new TCP port for RepSec (suggested: 4655) and to create a new "RepSec Parameters" registry containing: - Registered RepSec Commands (Specification Required) - Registered RepSec Extensions (Specification Required) - Status Codes (Standards Action) 9. Licensing and IPR This specification is made available under the IETF Trust Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (TLP). Implementations may be licensed under permissive or copyleft licenses (e.g., Apache-2.0, GPL/LGPL), provided interoperability with the open standard is maintained. "RepSec" may be used as a trademark to indicate interoperable implementations. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997, . Ehlers Expires 6 March 2026 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RepSec September 2025 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017, . 10.2. Informative References [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, October 2008, . [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 3411, December 2002, . Appendix A. Acknowledgments RepSec was inspired by the simplicity of SMTP and the extensibility of SNMP, with the goal of creating an open, non-proprietary Internet standard for reputation security. Author's Address Ralph Ehlers PastWipe S.L. Marbella Spain Email: info@pastwipe.com Ehlers Expires 6 March 2026 [Page 6]