[MLS] New drafts
Konrad Kohbrok <konrad.kohbrok@datashrine.de> Tue, 21 October 2025 13:21 UTC
Return-Path: <konrad.kohbrok@datashrine.de>
X-Original-To: mls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: mls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E147981F27 for <mls@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 06:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=datashrine.de
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gH6tek1APhpK for <mls@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 06:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout-p-102.mailbox.org (mout-p-102.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:0:465::102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A34A7981E09 for <mls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 06:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp202.mailbox.org (smtp202.mailbox.org [10.196.197.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-102.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4crXxB2SZyz9tjt for <mls@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:21:02 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=datashrine.de; s=MBO0001; t=1761052862; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KpQVdHlXCMn4Y3R45rD9rBeG9Js9MHGe/OAQVTYD0gU=; b=zFObW+lSBIf1/RBWkliy6y4QVOGqvYLQEq933afjgMqZReagpWDKGqEAS27Gd0IreBg/DU DKihnH84xP7oOa45DcMgA2qluw7cys+EiKyLxXHVRzEaxvRth1FuG5NbFwG2yweEj5jueo vycUqscNNxNVkfZphINgUkInVhMdp9FJUr/5YrbzmJZ8CHtYk1CP28jhay96+7rnQHU27P mK3LJmm87W8IVXJM3zxS0kZJPNq8Upi0kib4o6sI2v2wGDpAl2hesMAoY6+TvGUZ62CRfm Yi6sxXwxrigsmZyHZG6GY6rj3CBT5naUE8gH4vl5vHDAYySF3e5Jn7zaiFHWtw==
From: Konrad Kohbrok <konrad.kohbrok@datashrine.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <CFC4B70F-8A69-4AAB-9D27-EDDD6223D594@datashrine.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:20:51 +0200
To: MLS List <mls@ietf.org>
Message-ID-Hash: RQD7O6VJX2MQA2E4ZPKXUC4YOCQIKWPQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: RQD7O6VJX2MQA2E4ZPKXUC4YOCQIKWPQ
X-MailFrom: konrad.kohbrok@datashrine.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [MLS] New drafts
List-Id: Messaging Layer Security <mls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/jaR8j_p07QjDxacCfDSaQja0c_c>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mls>
List-Help: <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mls-leave@ietf.org>
Hi everyone, We uploaded a few new drafts for discussion at the upcoming IETF 124. Here’s the TL;DR on each of them. - Single Signature KeyPackage: KeyPackages with only one signature. If the group is interested, we could try something similar for commits. - DMLS/Fork Resilient MLS: I’ve cut the draft to its essence. If people are interested in the general approach, I’d like to know what is needed to push this towards adoption. - Virtual clients: We added a bunch of concrete protocol details, although a few gaps remain. Notably, we have moved away from the challenge based application message approach to the one proposed by Brendan [1]. - LeafOperationIntents: I applied the suggestions by Samir, removed the update functionality and included the ability to remove multiple clients at once. Again, I’d like to know if there is enough interest for me to continue working on this. Cheers, Konrad
- [MLS] New drafts Konrad Kohbrok
- [MLS] Re: New drafts Rohan Mahy
- [MLS] Re: New drafts Konrad Kohbrok