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

"Katriel Cohn-Gordon" <> Sat, 24 March 2018 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B38126DD9 for <>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 07:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.711
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=dsORbUFB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=IRkShPD9
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUnyLLzj3is7 for <>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 07:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFB011201F2 for <>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 07:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC33320BB9 for <>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:05:39 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=h/PPC2x+G1RXn03ijFZwDSeKLJ xsj1n5br/9NEBepoc=; b=dsORbUFBAmoMNYp03vWWT5Oa7IhAqOv1McL/U5qwkU j6OlCn7UW//LX6zQAuU0dAsgqLUOEskCB4B1OU+83jLbiMyeAqJfEhXd4jbBbCYh taxs3EcKID8EiQqF8bLjlG9mirGUYU8m0KVaqczf9DU/n1eUS6SmLdomCbvB63bj M=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=h/PPC2 x+G1RXn03ijFZwDSeKLJxsj1n5br/9NEBepoc=; b=IRkShPD9p38qr1GEbeLgs9 iN9ZwxrN+57bADTfkjokDrKdKRHhxbor8S0LR2baoV/uSPoeMFnQKdcXraAbDGMH BbNva18ygcFL8msgmsEoUZiCminA4lN/dIxYLXlhf000Rwz3CDX+ogmX4HrNSIBy DzI9w0KKSIGU1+ps6fKYg1sFoEUDNLN90xhjIPUAaiciULwXRr3/rcyRp+NxEtjl YDX70xHVWlRsBBfVqMs3p5dPvg1zev5ONR7JFUDxRZu3lOVul1jPhxbXpfM2hVU7 lZog+SJFgOGSh+bOdx6uM+m+JJGKA7FtxE9goKCCn2FUgmJICqsvYAW9BL8BAELQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:M1u2WkFSRK66OfiCxwufp8GD2S9lNu2-BDObIOsMiwW5MpsMFjULNQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id B2BFF9E124; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: "Katriel Cohn-Gordon" <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_152190033921141480"
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface - ajax-5ce6c4ba
References: <> <> <>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:05:39 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [MLS] MLS: the WG name should include "group"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Layer Security <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:05:44 -0000


I have no strong feelings regarding the name, but I do think we are
working on groups *because* you need them for general messaging.

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 <> 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
>> <> 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 mailing list
>>> _________________________________________________
> MLS mailing list