IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MLS] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 31 January 2023 14:51 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 5F919C1524AE for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 06:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LiIPAFCJ7q0p for <mls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 06:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2900C1524A3 for <mls@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 06:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id n28-20020a05600c3b9c00b003ddca7a2bcbso806639wms.3 for <mls@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 06:51:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2ocaS4jRJp9KdLz7YSmTx8X6tPvq5B3LzH7wFgZjH5Q=; b=kkqnLC8vh/cCtUMCVLdnkOjzO+8792mWHVdSTOlTjjzszAvOLn9iQXt4B+PP8ltxbR gVDQN1v2eX+j7V3xjbX+sRhN7suNRhEvaanIoBsL71V4HaRXf+5q6oSPJSgUHl/u73Xe /fYx0i7jrS1BLAm8tPK5W2nRLxtBxlkWkYOU3yzpoihBssk6WK26eVsenw8v+LoolpRy 7BjkEl4WeZirNFlPAp0H+De9KubOdFvDIwhXtbOSyyybkv5eVvCI4uSgbWB4q43qh6Vk nwv0kg0pv5XOKl3QkT8CXwng81yZSlfJrLNXHctLBMNnbbJxipWT6yW9Q+YcRV6wK4th jrzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=2ocaS4jRJp9KdLz7YSmTx8X6tPvq5B3LzH7wFgZjH5Q=; b=Wl+I2kr4e++d8In+oCgddd9JaHnSWPSxDxqTXkRBMWf9pkVJm/PpREinrPhHV7ZDpD zo4v54RnLyh5K0mufSFzAxJWEXInzy4VPpWJKf91mCWmOUxYdy313jqS6QTi/Bz75b40 5izUX9iBvomlUyFVZfhWe42Br7D3RsniYeKLDbqGWlaqONI4OSqCe8c8ln7dfOBuSl1E XFbL7AcqsRb5XVPdNWM/YMSLQ6SVbUEVjIwqC1t/PllcNi3LulsNwyLk/HLjpfpNlBDO p+dOxEOfM2ixVQ2AZ0GoCeXye/CB/hzO3ux7Ii/BYfJ01wOSso904uuy64kaah9tzNtE cuuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKU0ualW3e/Wj09FfEYMsNBAjyk0KqrqWZu4K3qsVsW7tGWX/M/N ZlKV+Wpoblyhy2lFCckOrf2xuTycF3nVvdbc7QV11g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/gCLVCalN0pX8d0ISSJksQYyzrW6DFhzBtHFcoXIyQPVaztqb6exHBZ6WecpFxEYlOa9cHSTp6fO2ypsa8zrQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:170a:b0:3dc:5240:a87b with SMTP id c10-20020a05600c170a00b003dc5240a87bmr769518wmn.12.1675176696320; Tue, 31 Jan 2023 06:51:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <167514991366.26632.7090779328804294577@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgSqHXwbg6KFCzEmTXzRAAUe495Lr8wx0kb+ZhU_kRz23g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgSqHXwbg6KFCzEmTXzRAAUe495Lr8wx0kb+ZhU_kRz23g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 09:51:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgTyB0-=mxsuSFhmy4B3tv3Pqogr92LZDtiMGSd+rSQxLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, mls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebac2f05f39077fa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/cAxcM8ntwsHdrt7QkdZO9eC3XiE>
Subject: Re: [MLS] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 31 Jan 2023 14:51:42 -0000

I filed a PR for these changes:

https://github.com/mlswg/mls-protocol/pull/849

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:10 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

> Hi Erik,
>
> Thanks for the review.  A couple responses inline below...
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 2:25 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> ## Comments
>>
>> * Thank you very much for all of the explicitly worked examples.
>>
>
> They were helpful in the WG discussions as well :)
>
>
> ### S7.3
>>
>> * What is the reason for MUST vs RECOMMENDED difference in the two
>> different
>>   circumstances when validating the `lifetime` field?
>>
>
> The reason is asynchronicity.  The protocol anticipates that there may be
> some time between when a message is sent and when it is received, during
> which time the KeyPackage might have expired.  So the WG felt that having a
> hard requirement on the receive side would cause undue complexity in light
> of this requirement.
>
>
>
>> * Consider adding a platitude about communicating nodes SHOULD use some
>>   method of time synchronization...
>>
>
> Good idea, thanks.
>
>
>> ## Nits
>>
>> ### S3.2
>>
>> * "top of these basic mechanism" -> "top of these basic mechanisms"
>>   (or maybe "top of this basic mechanism")
>>
>> ### S6.3.1
>>
>> * "in an PrivateContentTBE structure" -> "in a PrivateContentTBE
>> structure"
>>
>
> Can you tell we changed the names of these structs late in the process?  :)
>
> Best,
> --Richard
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email