IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MLS] protections for MLS "handshake" messages

Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> Thu, 19 July 2018 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jhall@cdt.org>
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 52E6D131129 for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org
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 8j22NYhON-zb for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x234.google.com (mail-ua0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::234]) (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 3CB63130FD6 for <mls@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x234.google.com with SMTP id w7-v6so5731579uan.9 for <mls@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qRM8f1DGKzWG1mKLtm/FqrYa+CxMMxoSb/ntnbgcN1s=; b=Xdya6GP34wcIw7/mjwm1ht7uMTGno4Fwp6nXmL02fKW0KfB0Qtu+zhesg8Nfh6TI8U AGuWfM4UTY2CBpGm8stro+inPPaB+vPOTMmq4CqHnKYCiqrBr72DKNeNgWzoA1fp+Lq1 f54T95milST7W513tf6oy2CVRqRnbDCZxY/wE=
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=qRM8f1DGKzWG1mKLtm/FqrYa+CxMMxoSb/ntnbgcN1s=; b=Scn+Oc/FSJRNU036cfHFKu9ssMiuf1GEi369upai1TzBC+SRk4/JhUkfX/LkgucDPQ 0JR0ofVTjrh8CMuc813N491tcOlTCiKKb6uSEt5RTIcb4l3oewd9RBVzyAtOamiA7fr0 SE+F2eOdv9CD6C7R8bt+vTygezHS4i5LK3U0b+BNXt63QbZO8fr9teOOwa9B5U1sbCqx tkIBocSiDXWrUMVdvE2vHRnkUeoDl+zH6wevUQrrGNtUPuEkavRLfnNRmowfF8E7mXAO Nmd/qyr6P3GTdL8WIK6RFQq7LJuMJcArdUfy3d2lW5hrs1y6M0fqikShda9cPo/s24XL CVgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG7PC99ANFYepmdUDsVViLIFrxs2YxGZN+7buetNF5TUr5CYD2n p8J2cj3/Xkk5wbJC8Halh6kNE2O8LkjpoY5ltjhc0tlr140=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeiWVlKpoRTfHv/5YPGICWS6E7KAvbuKogSmP1PK0AHc12sH/NTh48KYtAkITxQNLclTOW1HS/V7TwZbH2QFBs=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4b17:: with SMTP id h23-v6mr7410763uaf.84.1532021968066; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87fu0fxjhi.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
In-Reply-To: <87fu0fxjhi.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:39:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CABtrr-XWoNyKq4BBrTF9pczHZoB6bJOsxvU=Xgq6x-m4Bdgbhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Cc: mls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/PnDILilRa7MfOOK-YtPRr57mQEY>
Subject: Re: [MLS] protections for MLS "handshake" messages
X-BeenThere: mls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 19 Jul 2018 17:39:39 -0000

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:45 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor
<dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
>
> In today's session, there seemed to be an open question that wasn't
> explicitly addressed, so i wanted to raise it on the list.
>
> for lack of a better term, we're dividing MLS messages into
> "application" messages and "handshake" messages.  (i think we need
> a better term for "handshake", but i'll use it here for consistency with
> the current discussion)

What about "content" and "keying" messages as new names?

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status