IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Tue, 27 March 2018 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.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 808D912DA51 for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CVNiDcyAZf2b for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33EDD124234 for <mls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E17FFF99A; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:47:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EEB0C2076E; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software>, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>, mls@ietf.org, Raphael Robert <raphael@wire.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTvaa-1HfJ8zezsQ7baV7Xh0Vrq4-etkB73bGv8YryDWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87r2o9n277.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <CAG3f7MiJ5Jtxtk9OLMx10HApx7gV6xn103qaPBrGpH7kKgnQOA@mail.gmail.com> <FD644F8C-38BA-4573-B7F6-EF6AC4FEB57C@fb.com> <1521900339.2114148.1314586920.36507FA3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <E0F60678-8BAD-42C3-893F-A71685C60B23@wire.com> <CAMRcRGSz031jYrvOHi1aMVEofxnYHjBODvaR7PJg5bF-Lw_59w@mail.gmail.com> <6A75C740-6759-448D-9BC8-17A459D5F36E@symbolic.software> <87370lkzmn.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <CAL02cgTvaa-1HfJ8zezsQ7baV7Xh0Vrq4-etkB73bGv8YryDWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:45:04 -0400
Message-ID: <87lgedjiqn.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/AEXBhrd3W0HgvRvvb5tLeUbUwkY>
Subject: Re: [MLS] MLS: the WG name should include "group"
X-BeenThere: mls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:47:10 -0000

On Tue 2018-03-27 21:17:34 +0000, Richard Barnes wrote:
> I'm surprised by this claim.  Signal protocol is designed for 1-1
> messaging, and with the current draft, a 2-party session is pretty much the
> same as a Signal session.

Sure, so we don't need the tree at all in that case, right?  similarly,
we don't need message signatures (which Signal doesn't have).

i get it that the 2-party protocol can be treated as a special case of
the n-party protocol.  that doesn't mean we're designing a two-party
protocol, though.  We're clearly designing a group messaging protocol,
and we should say so.

> ISTM the difference between MLS(n=2) and TLS is driven more by the desire
> for asynchronicity than by the optimization for groups.  Which might lead
> one to argue that "asynchronous" should be in the name, but the same
> "because it's 2018" argument applies.

Asynchronous messaging predates the present moment by at least 36 years
(c.f. RFC 821) -- it's not a novel 2018 requirement :P

             --dkg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email