[km-fs-pcs] Relation to "MLS Targeted Messages"
Gaëtan Wattiau <gaetan.wattiau@proton.me> Fri, 19 June 2026 17:29 UTC
Return-Path: <gaetan.wattiau@proton.me>
X-Original-To: km-fs-pcs@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: km-fs-pcs@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE921041569C for <km-fs-pcs@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 10:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1781890157; bh=qfqi9WNocFnSM/ImlmitExL2CLM+IPOnUraPbLzxmtU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=jqPU9PYLi+ikQKdEIoIrXmg0q2gtpqngEaS+YDFD0WKAUn29ZybjoS2BkM8CetVmG JDHMHwHK47lfMRtFEeCCAs+qi7mPsZJRgsZFKYT0Z8noW6zBUbfujC6LL8cPQCL40c rxkITXFARYUQau4e9UjNAdFq9742ec6TxQUKMORs=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nysz3pNtC1Ru for <km-fs-pcs@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 10:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-24430.protonmail.ch (mail-24430.protonmail.ch [109.224.244.30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E123210415694 for <km-fs-pcs@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 10:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=proton.me; s=protonmail; t=1781890150; x=1782149350; bh=qfqi9WNocFnSM/ImlmitExL2CLM+IPOnUraPbLzxmtU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date: Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=VmrVb3cMyWlp50ONIEhfBt05hBQVIMRYFHO95vRHBvQ8o5bXni9MOGps9wuxxBkJt a15GhVOAXDX7ooadIRbyO6tNANXBsMJA3f2pS0tVsw7MgKn7eIO1pFx+0r71TVspqf cX8dSfWligm/iAIrosw14SLgYpR+HXqFahWftXJuXcRczECH1Hs/qqMj8Kr8z59nhh XC+ESDFwtt8s3c6Gn4pBSbAX8uJypK1mk8wFyVQk+wyZ+hUuGMYdrbhsq5vJl5xVHa M55/fU/139j2n4Yjkm8KwWbkxaRC26adgUYlIGWU6oLl9T8iftT66xvcirWXmr+nNw gXOjTlAUL6wxw==
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 17:28:59 +0000
To: "km-fs-pcs@ietf.org" <km-fs-pcs@ietf.org>
From: Gaëtan Wattiau <gaetan.wattiau@proton.me>
Message-ID: <q650BAhPsg846eb93uPl4X0Tzg-_Dw2DWLjeAqjqjbxVCfDb4qcV5gN4uvklygzf5JRTapHmPgBZ-w796QkrVMOXI4lidYujgdH7GtPg2dE=@proton.me>
Feedback-ID: 45733869:user:proton
X-Pm-Message-ID: 6dbf8ccbd2514db8c855b64de0f71b0207d597e7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1=_OOGuQfFR8Q8iYt7cWdI6wRnnvGlZJ0mI5dqawPvQ7eg"
Message-ID-Hash: 546RTNHGO3KVOMQ4RH7YLVAV4MHHABH5
X-Message-ID-Hash: 546RTNHGO3KVOMQ4RH7YLVAV4MHHABH5
X-MailFrom: gaetan.wattiau@proton.me
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [km-fs-pcs] Relation to "MLS Targeted Messages"
List-Id: Key management that provides forward security and post compromise security <km-fs-pcs.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/km-fs-pcs/cwkRCuezFMEt53Sdx5unxwG_8PI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/km-fs-pcs>
List-Help: <mailto:km-fs-pcs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:km-fs-pcs-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:km-fs-pcs@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:km-fs-pcs-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:km-fs-pcs-leave@ietf.org>
I just read the MLS-TLS draft, and my understanding is that it is currently centered on a two-party with a two-party profile. Have you considered a direction where this stays conceptually 1:1 at the messaging layer, but within an MLS group, using something like targeted messages [1] rather than MLS two-party profile? Best, Gaëtan Wattiau [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mls-targeted-messages/
- [km-fs-pcs] Relation to "MLS Targeted Messages" Gaëtan Wattiau
- [km-fs-pcs] Re: Relation to "MLS Targeted Message… Raphael Robert
- [km-fs-pcs] Re: Relation to "MLS Targeted Message… Gaëtan Wattiau
- [km-fs-pcs] Re: Relation to "MLS Targeted Message… Konrad Kohbrok
- [km-fs-pcs] Re: Relation to "MLS Targeted Message… Gaëtan Wattiau