IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MLS] Removing ART; maybe adding partial-tree

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 01 October 2018 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
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 BF8BE130F19 for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
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 5zd9cEeiiWpS for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (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 4F9DB130EF2 for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f8-v6so13515079ljk.1 for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F/B8BzTlQ6y/R+ace/1S3mZkQXtIDgx7zavl0TAlud0=; b=K6s6UjEFccoOMJIE8zsyD17dzQYyR5gNxMhC+Z3RNIy/N4oSPT8x/+Vwsc4/V4+ZbX HYO2S3KTjEojp2a7yM1VRfmP6Fp8gnDnRUxa4CrMZDNA8RoG8Hjxt5REPbTNZ8mIKGIO gNbjeQUv47UH2eV8kfczsAsSgbqgPLfKFCsMQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F/B8BzTlQ6y/R+ace/1S3mZkQXtIDgx7zavl0TAlud0=; b=WQwe0KnJscb8nzme2izfrpgeOUivUZkXwwrelsz/9eeqGQ8YMK9SHWz38AQkcZH6tW 6yOA1Zqmsz+ZdUw7rutd6qGEt2QHMROGrY5ovBok590dh6GeObzjlLqGBAeIbvnINKzk WSwREG5ZUAtnF4fn/rlMAu13fYS517AIuWWrzBjpHHrEMKE+YmOJqnvQRlq1s7ynVzCt DHKMAA3Jt7WrD9f52TIRLlGPuqyMzmrl1TgQyZ8iLo2TPr1ErQsQjIQ+LK6s/xkdNh6K iQL/EfIhcgLLhJSeWkw/LXf2sAANR6xK/6bN03aZkW1ICQPVgBdXeZkmq3KWgvQl5bd+ ga6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohQ31n9lmy/xmUvkdgyrNsHljRbUHFrmYpKSNjoHrebUe24JkbW u4zibekO6dZGQrv8dVg9LquRkrGVjFbf2vcaqwbdaflr7F0lXA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60kepetjctkAA0omcu/7nDISYCWnHQ2VXgPttoMpjK2WU9Sf4ZtN3zgNeVeUeJr0GzxMpLTJC9rPmRLO7KcB08=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:900c:: with SMTP id h12-v6mr4966502ljg.121.1538426045273; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL02cgSBCnjNMBHa7iJWqOYF_DNh8gUbGS4jsz57rO5=uAM1EA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgSBCnjNMBHa7iJWqOYF_DNh8gUbGS4jsz57rO5=uAM1EA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 21:33:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxJ-5UmvA-3_sqNvWApN=zbLMbHTrwwv+-R3m6nS1RXJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: mls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f127ff057730b9e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/-vyVMXWbiPqFcB2OJGEfWasWAjQ>
Subject: Re: [MLS] Removing ART; maybe adding partial-tree
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, 01 Oct 2018 20:34:15 -0000

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 19:06, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> At the interim last week, there was agreement to remove the discussion of
> ART from the protocol draft and focus on TreeKEM.  I have implemented that
> change in the following pull request:
>
> https://github.com/mlswg/mls-protocol/pull/66
>
>
I'm not objecting to the change - I lack sufficient cryptographic knowledge
to express an opinion - but it'd be very useful to read a synopsis of the
reasoning behind it, and a summary of the discussion. I imagine future
participants would find it useful too, and of course, all decisions need to
go by the list anyway.

I reviewed the PR for clarity/typos.


> If a couple of folks could give a quick review, it would be appreciated.
> I also put together a PR describing how to do the "partial tree" approach
> described at the interim and in my earlier message today.
>
> https://github.com/mlswg/mls-protocol/pull/67
>

Also reviewed for clarity/typos. I admit I'm mildly confused as to why
adding a node needs to blank the direct path, but at the same time I'm not
sure it makes any difference. (That is, here:
https://github.com/mlswg/mls-protocol/pull/67/commits/7a7cd37aec0ceff773600564b5c9619c3d06a115#diff-a87cc9081154f564150420544170f1c9R1113
). That's probably just my lack of understanding somewhere.


>
> Feedback welcome!
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email