Re: [MLS] MLS: the WG name should include "group"

'mls' seems to be a fine name as it indicates e2e security for messaging
layer of the stack. Group vs 1:1 is a realization of an application context
on top of such a abstraction layer is what i feel.

./S

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Raphael Robert <raphael@wire.com> wrote:

> We looked at a number of alternatives to MLS and in the end none of them
> seemed to be substantially better than “Messaging Layer Security”, but that
> doesn’t mean the name cannot be changed.
>
> In my opinion “messaging” implies groups in 2018 and it’s not a special
> case of messaging anymore. It's the norm for non-E2EE products, and a
> number of E2EE messengers support it as well already today: WhatsApp,
> Signal, Wire, etc. In the context of MLS, “groups" are also interchangeable
> with “multi-device”, which is also becoming the norm.
>
> The 1:1 pairwise mode is still important technologically, but
> application-wise it will most likely be perceived as a special case of
> (group) messaging.
>
> Also just my 2c.
>
> Raphael
>
> On 24 Mar 2018, at 15:05, Katriel Cohn-Gordon <me@katriel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I have no strong feelings regarding the name, but I do think we are
> working on groups *because* you need them for general messaging.
>
> Katriel
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018, at 1:43 PM, Jon Millican wrote:
>
> Thanks for raising this point. I'm also no good at naming, but agree that
> there's potential scope to name more clearly. A couple of points in
> response to the specific issues you raised though:
>
> While most of the discussion has focused on groups, my feeling is that
> this is because group is a more challenging superset of the pairwise case;
> and we should still care about pairwise messaging. In the pairwise case I
> think the main differentiator compared with TLS is the requirement for
> asynchronicity; so if we're clearly carving up the territory it might make
> sense to highlight this.
>
> Just my 2c though. I have no objection at all to changing the name, and
> certainly agree that group support is a crucial aspect that could be worth
> highlighting.
>
>
> Jon
>
> On 24 Mar 2018, at 13:15, Shivan <shivankaul.1993@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 the name seems to be inspired by TLS but the drafts concern themselves
> explicitly with group messaging, not messaging as a whole.
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 11:28 AM Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the work that has gone into the proposed MLS architecture
> and protocol drafts already.
>
> As we move toward working group formation, i'm a little bit concerned
> that the ostensible name of the project ("message layer security")
> doesn't adequately describe the most salient features.
>
> We spent most of the time at the BoF in IETF 101 London talking about
> the design of the group key agreement scheme and the strong
> cryptographic properties we want it to provide -- and i suspect that
> most of the work in any formed WG will center around that problem.
>
> So it seems odd to me that the word "group" doesn't appear in the name
> "MLS".
>
> I'm no good at acronyms, but i'll just throw out two alternatives:
>
>   MSG: Messaging Security for Groups
>
>   MESSAGE: Message Encryption and Security Standard for Asynchronous Group
> Environments
>
> I hope since the WG isn't yet formed, it's not too late to consider a
> change to the name.  We ought to be up front about the group-specific
> context that we're talking about here, as we already have a security
> layer that works for messages passing between two endpoints
> synchronously (TLS) and it'd be nice to clearly carve up the territory.
>
>         --dkg
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mls&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=M0CVEJydBVUX_bvEqMa84Q&m=q5KP1AJUu-4ir-39yrQWELe1gULZ7UQbevfDBrgr0ss&s=jlPCTk9fCDAvKt6l2DuFKYLJoRLEL_KXV7lPHhtlA3M&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
> ietf..org_mailman_listinfo_mls&d=DwICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=
> M0CVEJydBVUX_bvEqMa84Q&m=q5KP1AJUu-4ir-39yrQWELe1gULZ7UQbevfDBrgr0ss&s=
> jlPCTk9fCDAvKt6l2DuFKYLJoRLEL_KXV7lPHhtlA3M&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mls&d=DwICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=M0CVEJydBVUX_bvEqMa84Q&m=q5KP1AJUu-4ir-39yrQWELe1gULZ7UQbevfDBrgr0ss&s=jlPCTk9fCDAvKt6l2DuFKYLJoRLEL_KXV7lPHhtlA3M&e=>
>
> *_______________________________________________*
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>
>