[MLS] [Delivery Service]

Pascal Junod <pascalj@snap.com> Thu, 21 November 2019 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <pjunod@snapchat.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 A9F221200C4 for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:51:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=snap.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 5w6-04557jQS for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 77FCC120125 for <mls@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id u24so2506525iob.5 for <mls@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:51:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=snap.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DrUNw0zJQeBNAc+RyaBtjQWaHUk4GIkb7+NaKRa9DiY=; b=PM3vXTzkQOAMnorIcmGTts6cxv1M1h6r7LRjAwTNVKbjDxt6OSXzT6m1W3CixpGAn5 zi2HPY361m15AFmH2NrzuuIhau6dO3craezsmQ436BL5L2a00wF1zyo7vD/6nV7c9DFj PRhVVulNJgvKCJRrkahL0Vv5GxzPtzYhQmmiU=
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=DrUNw0zJQeBNAc+RyaBtjQWaHUk4GIkb7+NaKRa9DiY=; b=EWzuTGcU8riAMbwAAdV+F2oFAQmdoe05Hp0GhvlKevZX8EyrX7LgbyTTMUAWwJVcbp pWISTGJZCF3Itf/E2onrAed5jVDpuAf5OkXpSH+MekFJWsVOkPUxHrzx+TadoQplSN9x /cQJ2YQcMD6b4n6/4B5167ybywMU0r6ZAcShINXF70ttmx+VtiMA1h+9PlHEfnQGzsp6 CS0OVUvCi0GRWbpCgbhOsSEuhkNZTHKyXPpRl4lJx7cySod8M0gtIZeRAR9xYsx+ZbSM lZN3FbYvzuOBp/ts32IFj7/d+qo4L06SEpI3QMtbDTDqLm4X9imgq8lwPu1tgIdHQ9X0 Ncqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXHUqtEK6kD6c1y1OAdlaTPgeJgYG1annEBezPBB9XWRUXv++Yc v8OSXvQUqcPEHZJd+3lDAVMO1rQd2gGgRFtxJtSrq2hDmFQQJg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxmL/WxfV6zeT2cnECBrYSMyhIqjSHjVwxAwYHNA2wra5ZEqu8072PLCJfatTWsBni+wDgyAPvevnlAhRmR2Ac=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b9d5:: with SMTP id j204mr8258775iof.129.1574355089483; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:51:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Pascal Junod <pascalj@snap.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 17:51:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPOUjt69249PznZzpLdZ81XtCTR=5nDWtmA6rTu9nABSf=KJ7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Messaging Layer Security WG <mls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dc178d0597de1b47"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/B9WeRrYKoFNVTpxOetlqPSFY13E>
Subject: [MLS] [Delivery Service]
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:51:32 -0000

Hi !

In the architecture document, one expects the Delivery Service "*to route
messages between clients and to act as a message broadcaster, taking in one
message and forwarding it to multiple clients (also known as “server side
fanout”).*" (cf. §2.3)

At the same time, a bit further, one can read that "*Group membership is
itself sensitive information and MLS is designed so that neither the DS nor
the AS need have static knowledge of which clients are in which group.*"

In particular, the ClientInitKey and Welcome messages do not have any
notion about group or node identities, they only have the client_init_key_id
field in common, which means that the DS has no means (through the current
protocol format) to route messages in a proper way.

How is it possible to solve this apparent contradiction ?

Many thanks in advance,

Pascal