Re: [MLS] Enumeration of failure modes in protocol draft
Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Mon, 23 July 2018 15:43 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 1E5A8130F03 for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] 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 Q5PSOwNgPnsa for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::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 E5B89130DF5 for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id v8-v6so1924757oie.5 for <mls@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jlJ0L64cpQqJN8WEz6j2l01drSmb/jvLuQD48/Hp2SY=; b=RTbSkGA9oHRutAhdmEHgHh5c2O5ptXenXpywXaixlNkh+qPbkHNqDxaEfHVjeqBYHt UTxTSgyoe67gO3E/Dr3aW06sOO6rZxqg3eF7OB016qVlcSUmhuSjD0LW+1M/Mo7Y+7Cb 1VE+zYip3Jj85jdXpDqHxgWQ33TQOEu5sCOlDT1xVZsiHfICI0BEl8fFdwft+Zm++6RM Vols+bDFjEBfKk4HcmAFHBlF0cfX925PGSLjFbqBJ5fmQ0HwTYhRv8tf0NTXQRSibIzm wgB51ioFHAv6rWbCD2zeWIiqvQobDHPT2nCS3AvbRLCDt/noAUOQv8jZeTT4+nOekmVe uFmg==
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=jlJ0L64cpQqJN8WEz6j2l01drSmb/jvLuQD48/Hp2SY=; b=QCiZh5t8zSpAKv0Np+IGyd6nGaY9R/GhW7kGCNLZMtRtK13Hwf7R3XAAwZcGryczU0 9zmtTy4d4QBc7yjUxKBFz+qT1wa363XHxvmCa5NlugcuKzyQqJokK70yFsHjAK5VKUpW glO3Z87rS8uExmJAvB/cuNHfYI4d3Ev5O5HSFVzvn9bvO1lgWedHBsjuD5b6Ob70XLwR P+rWk0yaMrrbY/Y15HjqoNj3o3UYQOFQuzOnNenLFQB+m/0Kg7U1hZQ8W+4OBG18WMgy mGh+iza56q4TaTo41ofQSo8U0hbTRi9SgllfxVhs8A+5Ld029W5kG9F01VpY7hxNoO+E FW7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEY7RWQjK6vXCCw5WuY050V7TPHIEFuksYzVSofo678dMgZwNoU U5MOilOArro08p+AkWCLkFngkLlDD52YKQWgxdr5rw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcK6OVTTTmqZhQyhtXq0UHFKxg2URny2tIHMizK0Lic0ksPxlZdV/+s7hTcwbFDi4Pwsftqf1tH4WcWl4DjPG4=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4994:: with SMTP id w142-v6mr8485064oia.114.1532360580184; Mon, 23 Jul 2018 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJm22Jb_kxYPjrU53-jDHZ3F7k0=KnYwrwiQCo3hbTsVvnaApg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJm22Jb_kxYPjrU53-jDHZ3F7k0=KnYwrwiQCo3hbTsVvnaApg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 11:42:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgTFbSbxsWzgKQESpLix+82WHca6emirdQ13YZuxQp_G8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: ssahib@salesforce.com
Cc: mls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000cd1d50571ac80ba"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/_-V2uGPVTKPtTZi0dAW19BKXAqQ>
Subject: Re: [MLS] Enumeration of failure modes in protocol draft
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: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:43:03 -0000
This is a good think to keep an eye on, but we'll probably be more effective at addressing it once we have the protocol and its flows more nailed down. I expect these sorts of cases will also come up during interop testing. On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:20 AM Shivan Sahib <ssahib@salesforce.com> wrote: > There was some talk at the hackathon on whether we should have a section > in the protocol draft about things that are currently 'undefined'. For > example, what happens in the GroupAdd case where we're adding C to a group > containing A and B, if A and B call state.add(C) but state.init() fails for > C. > > It would be worthwhile to consider general ways in which things could go > wrong and mention recovery mechanisms in the draft. > _______________________________________________ > MLS mailing list > MLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls >
- [MLS] Enumeration of failure modes in protocol dr… Shivan Sahib
- Re: [MLS] Enumeration of failure modes in protoco… Richard Barnes