[MLS] Closing some issues

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 16 June 2020 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 F0EE53A15BE for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.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 dpAWGWlnnNYJ for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (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 CA1EC3A15B9 for <mls@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id l17so19278026qki.9 for <mls@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6CuWf+iUMoRiaCRAjKZYM8dsjeUlc5DnCciCRzMa5j4=; b=VUCFmlkz/MH6lVCZu1fLlMsi7Sfp6QO1fkxFFmWzvg+OlHhnHSwXgjXqZEgfhtpua4 f+6uqNgJzwFBnQKQJ21dvZgbuArr8KbkuBphwFTeYwA8MicYJSgnoVBpIwtwp4HBbqCT ghiOtpvjGKQ9lplhs/TumimtnOGW5ney+T43E28jIH90/vlx2W8mBPZJ3kJxstiVVXhO VGhCzqpoG2iBKUo31lYtuGP/e1AorBPiWRgY5VrM5rEkUHJARFeYn881QL9UH8KzGUZt BtDOObiEF+d5y3TpVKrbNLKCvy/3kbqq4O/a5HZ+pI3rttY3LZBTrBkIyDUXkjMovqxj lGcQ==
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=6CuWf+iUMoRiaCRAjKZYM8dsjeUlc5DnCciCRzMa5j4=; b=MdfGkehIeLVNwgLIs6l8bQL1S58e6weYPSmugGDSqQ/4hyBxgTXoXEz7ELrT0c7Gwc 6EhrN7e+GZX6e1Wtk6joytsD1RueJV/ZVtZGQE+xHenTDtR/t83NSRNI1v5rcZVZRqX8 HUCgdw8cX0gC36HLohNua9cUEjf/sCMVyfyHofoD+UWGc5kEDa+Xwu7GPUf2m9gfUozd JinG3rB6adNukLgxnqNVmFwS9L625gBjNgo+M/7rtg02/dlU6bqdpkymEdYZ0RYZUI9d VKyuZiGVJikKbw8gE6RSwzXv0stYChp8K8Tef/diXe9wm0zMlTr+XqJQZ195kqjetjmu +X7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533k+4ql2jFEMYr6ZK4FpBAUgQrf0KpdRY77fmZjf0aDEMAmiN7q TcaE82rma/8uagP4Og2BX5gQQQD9y5956UpxLfR+gdyYnGyW7w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwuYWrwo6KXUUsrAS8uP55thcCU55cJb30fRsPrNFE43Rf9Zr3kXjI0XPGfOBI6h/nxioA7w6zpXnzRDJUv/IM=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:79c6:: with SMTP id u189mr20989571qkc.490.1592317906224; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:31:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgT2VZ_SE3sRL0+iW96yOSe+POUnTMkNXsS82qoK4RZRhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Messaging Layer Security WG <mls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002b9be905a83467c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/IZUdvuT4hPgjFiPvbBAAQZaqVO0>
Subject: [MLS] Closing some issues
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:31:55 -0000

Hey all,

Benjamin, Raphael, and I met today to try to triage the MLS protocol issue
list, as a step toward burning it down and getting to WGLC.  Our main
result was to agree to close a bunch of issues :)  I’ve summarized our
thinking below.  If you disagree, please object on this list in the next
couple of days; I’ll probably review feedback and start closing things on
Friday.

In a similar vein, if you have issues you think need to be addressed, get
'em filed, because the WGLC is building steam!

Thanks,
—Richard

#91 User-Initiated Add
#271 Create and send to sub-groups
#301 Targeted message
This has only been partially solved, by the feature that allows new joiners
to propose that they be added.  The missing part is a “send to group from
outside” function.  With that, you would have a full, “add yourself to
group” user experience; as it is, you have to be admitted by someone in the
group.  But we thought that “send to group from outside” was a separate
enough piece of work that it could be handled as an add-on spec to the base
protocol.  Likewise for subgroups / targeted messaging.

#118 Discuss DH cofactor issues and Update DH and Elliptic Curve parameters
text.
This is an issue for HPKE, not for MLS.

#222 Performance measurements
We tried and failed.

#264 Fix inconsistent definitions of Derive-Secret
Duplicate of #324

#270 Expiration on "last resort key" must not be omitted
This has been fixed, since the lifetime extension is mandatory.

#289 Make Editor's Copy and WG draft compare work properly build
Katriel has until EOW to fix this, then we’re closing the issue and giving
up.

#298 Varints
As discussed on the last call, this isn’t enough of a benefit to worry
about.   Richard might file a PR to uniformize lengths.

#299 Allow indirection of credentials
This can be done with a new credential type, doesn’t need to be in the base
spec.

#346 Ratcheting of External PSKs
This is not the job of the base protocol.  TLS, for example, has done just
fine having PSK considerations in follow-on documents.