Re: [MLS] -mls-architecture: resolving encrypted group operations

I strongly prefer PR#246.  While I think the technical arguments that
Richard offers are relevant, I think even more important is that the IETF
speak with one voice. Given that MIMI has opted not to encrypt these
messages, we should not publish a standard that recommends otherwise.

-Ekr

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 8:56 PM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:

> Hi! Last we met, we talked about how to resolve the issue related to one
> of the encrypted group operation’s recommendations [1]; also, thanks to
> Brendan for starting this thread [2].  This thread is intended to help Nick
> and I call consensus on which of the two PRs to direct the authors to land.
> If it is not clear from this thread, we will discuss at our session at IETF
> 119.  The two PRs follow:
>
> 1. PR #246 [3] rewords the issue description and removes the
> recommendation; this change keeps us (the royal us) from looking silly when
> the first protocol to call out MLS does not follow the recommendation.
>
> 2. PR #249 [4] keeps recommendation but state that applications may use
> unencrypted operations if they have an explicit reason to.
>
> Cheers,
> spt
>
> [1] https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/210
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/1ohlP2TZr_LBuLyM7rfDKnM9Jo8/
> [3] https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/246
> [4] https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/249
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>