[MLS] PBC in MLS

Marek Jankowski <mjankowski309@gmail.com> Mon, 10 June 2019 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mjankowski309@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E634120020 for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q=1.508, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXkrhO1tvQHa for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x12b.google.com (mail-it1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B20120019 for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id q14so12400410itc.5 for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=MQI05QmbZ6M+ayDvVLbO0I3oLSYJK8CMxXuWE4dpOzU=; b=Y2E2vKSO6WhZgNTBhugy8fwE2mkNSgS6zJU2xZo6GWJQVl9kYXz+SDt0m5+PP+T6ra ptohZcSBlYdk1oyvAM2cGf96/jvl2IhaldbkC8CFsVrLzW8zbxT6VTO8S/j6zsF0CF3J 2Go8G9MJHZe3c19EdT9IHKU/T2BWyxEpjuMOrdVG/LDnKzwHUizBhAMlvVWZrrN45vbb uzF9RIBcUf5MccbrzDZyE7OiViPPok7pPr7QdISBl3SXYV80UeXUKe+mXW6KsYJKRiS2 PcRk85OpZO44zEA7b/wCx/QrAs8m8hMmqLAGHbw6twmvRkH+yw35weiZ9yggYIk9iioo TiRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=MQI05QmbZ6M+ayDvVLbO0I3oLSYJK8CMxXuWE4dpOzU=; b=V1/+idd+5InMUsJTAVy/YoPBvf57Io6YAGseUICiqf4RgO1UxEExto5JOYYUp6BPSX 5PIRlQQ845EV7irCBMVO3WxlE69f2N+KBsVDCk/fv52r/tJGt8sMajudUDrbqNfDaxix HqvVh/1V0X9FShEJ5SArFOMqS9+ftcGm+KKt7Z6TimJAsq+aASIwkjDxU/w5giO/RibO GJXk8Z7SxXt8VLEWqpO9V6tNsYRHc3BScFZr7W8ixkYaIOjcCvEhc9zt1TXgEqc6UI7d DfFcL8XrN5mS80R9b4l9crfoVZBmpq1xIajHtZk99fDD/Hy41jqffMqqvp3Uhe70pbh1 /FjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU8RNIlMtUd7jjvh0YggIszRRvll4A8thITmNSK5JPdHi0mDQg+ EypaV1/vURlHZQwtfCcWSRTbNPkVjWRADEWURhzznJEh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwqFFDdySU3AeJ1X3FRlEbnQ+jpPBzUZ2wQhxtLQTMwjzNBojKIgHyAQhEv5nMR/IZ3LZ8+D6IU4W/Y2i5xEP0=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:c4d7:: with SMTP id v206mr14446517itf.102.1560177292266; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 07:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Marek Jankowski <mjankowski309@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:06:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMCcN7TVFLmWFB=LKNWgSEbxssubc-EXuH+eC-Gp_5xVgj9UNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ad653058af91598"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/-CPscvxFtmV_odvHzauu9jHeWzw>
Subject: [MLS] PBC in MLS
X-BeenThere: mls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Layer Security <mls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mls>, <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls>, <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 14:34:55 -0000

Hi all,

I have only briefly read through the previous MLS discussions, so please
forgive me if it had been discussed before.

Lately there has been significant amount of research and standardization
effort in the area of pairings (I-D boneh, I-D yonezawa). The schemes, some
of which are already deployed in the industry (Cloudflare, Intel), offer
interesting cryptographic primitives with somewhat surprisingly small
ciphertext length.

One of the drawbacks I identified in the current MLS proposal is the log(n)
factor each user pays in bandwidth for every ADD/DELETE/UPDATE message. It
is especially significant in groups with many members, which is a
requirement for any MLS solution. I wonder if any of the primitives PBC
offers (O(1) ciphertext length IBBE, 3PDH) may reduce the bandwidth usage
for large groups.

I would be happy to hear any of the folks' ideas and thoughts regarding
those schemes and their potential uses for MLS.

Thank you,
Marek.