Re: [MLS] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 2:25 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> ### Section 7.1
>
> Is it appropriate for an IETF RFC (even if informal) to qualify WireGuard
> and
> TOR as `secure channel` ? This DISCUSS point is only to generate discussion
> among the IESG during the telechat. This discuss point will be removed
> anyway
> after the discussion.
>

I don't think this is necessarily a problem, but I think the citation of
these protocols
is actually confusing in this context.

I have filed this PR to remove them:
https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/180

-Ekr



>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ## COMMENTS
>
> ### Abstract about 'scalable'
>
> This document and its companion appear to demonstrate the security
> properties
> of MLS, but do they also cover the scalability ones ? E.g., in section 2,
> there
> is `or as large as thousands`, good number but not enough for an IETF full
> remote plenary. Later in section 5, it is `groups with tens of thousands of
> members`, i.e., a different order of magnitude.
>
> ### Section 2
>
> In `The Service Provider presents ....` is it unclear to me what service
> it is
> about ? The MLS service or the messaging service ?
>
> Is there a reason why sometimes AS/DS acronyms are used and at other places
> their expansions are used ?
>
> `she can use to send encrypted messages to Bob and Charlie` is the message
> also
> signed by Alice ? Hinted in section 3 but worth already warning the
> reader...
>
> `join an existing group;` should "(by asking to be added)" be specified ?
> As
> per `leave a group`.
>
> Does the MLS group intend to extend the MLS protocol itself to support
> group of
> moderators ? This sounds like a basic requirement to me (as a frequent
> videoconf user/moderator).
>
> ### Section 4.2
>
> Why is "Partition-tolerant" mentionned in to the classes of DS ? It seems
> that
> it is useless to specify as a discriminator.
>
> I find this section difficult to read, e.g., what are the "Commit" or
> "Proposal" messages ? It seems that the flow is not natural.
>
> ### Section 5.4
>
> Perhaps a mere rendering issue, but RECOMMENDATION appears in bold and is
> in
> uppercase while it is not a normative 'RECOMMEND'. Strongly suggest to use
> lowercase.
>
> ## NITS
>
> ### SEction 1
>
> Isn't `enjoy some level of security` ambiguous or under specified ?
>
> ### Section 2
>
> Please use the Oxford comma in `Alice, Bob and Charlie`
>
> ## Notes
>
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use
> the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues.
>
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
>
>
>
>