IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MLS] Weekly github digest (MLS Working Group summary)

Repository Activity Summary Bot <do_not_reply@mnot.net> Sun, 09 March 2025 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <do_not_reply@mnot.net>
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 AC5AA9420BB for <mls@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:38:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=mnot.net header.b="f+Z8fi6Q"; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="0hSUsz6X"
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 aIj_anK9womk for <mls@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:38:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fout-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.144]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF36994208A for <mls@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phl-compute-08.internal (phl-compute-08.phl.internal [10.202.2.48]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F1E13826AB for <mls@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-08.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 09 Mar 2025 03:38:52 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :content-type:content-type:date:from:from:in-reply-to :mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1741505932; x=1741592332; bh=sSpzrRuPbZL9qldloH5ihrI5Lr0lmnl8ImL 6CZgR5/A=; b=f+Z8fi6QX93JWKL+5wwvgaJi9H56/0tSVa9cph17gBJmuBNZryj hLjNmqvejQsZsTFXP7uE8coDrK2d6xP42bBeDWSmwbaBgAZpeeFDhNiWSdOu/ITV zw0gs/gpWhu45q9x2vGDFYb3BapTFRS617Kt0loWRRwqz36Bi4/W80vH4f6HZAeA YocgPMkRvl2isq3ALgHow11hk2lYo6K7W5l4BR5rkugxhlgmnuMGeXv09Ax+xbE3 13PIoYiPxa/VIB57ihdueZlffaKkoMi0tfYuovYTfBQnTHN7S9WSsUeOHb8kOpqj gAHULuElcOhob6vfWraz4a/iNdtiFUYp+bA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:mime-version :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1741505932; x=1741592332; bh=s SpzrRuPbZL9qldloH5ihrI5Lr0lmnl8ImL6CZgR5/A=; b=0hSUsz6XEB9R2Vpv3 CiVxjK2sRxplsg/MYPPN+CNJdEe6aWV7j3+7Im8Q+lVQR5dbHYhTq0+OOLspmWdv TlGO1AxqkHmQ9pBiRXZjn7t0hmw4uYaaWS/EmffudH/s24KmbXBd2Xkql+S29b3s IjyCW2ME5qRSrhnc7hVjJWTA/oFULQ4Wl6zVlIHUlqdFU4tL7rrQ/AIcrfvJlGFz ophhguPSA/JdqkdJKUdLPXQlGGWk1+EJcZdcY9LX1OxjkLBED0MUQLcPzIZLUTMg XLDsbGE6o3ErvFJu4Yo73AhLzmD/8GPoplHhHvrFDQrB0SQwiHJs5B+D1PL52jEB Xzihg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:jEXNZ44QTzrrbTbklmb_6KurjGui0jPPMbdvaOsK5hAo20xxvbVb5w> <xme:jEXNZ568Z4uttWKPZYTXsLO2mprI5QawpgBl7CJw2EF3pTRmKb7AropSnRrzaZdxM aDER147zYR0JmFK4Q>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:jEXNZ3ebqWuM1oj11YgfFsFnpURMAVXgLRQf3zFv6u_QnYFG5ylxdkrQRoN->
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgdduudehkeeiucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucfpohcuuggrthgvuc hfihgvlhguucdlgeelmdenucfjughrpegtggfhvffusegrtddtredttdejnecuhfhrohhm peftvghpohhsihhtohhrhicutegtthhivhhithihucfuuhhmmhgrrhihuceuohhtuceoug hopghnohhtpghrvghplhihsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeef vdduteejvdefkeehieevuefgfefhteetveegffekffefteffvdelheduieetnecuffhomh grihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgr mhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeguohgpnhhothgprhgvphhlhiesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtpdhnsg gprhgtphhtthhopedupdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehmlhhssehi vghtfhdrohhrgh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:jEXNZ9KHewHxve84UlH6QXap-FvEMFI5po3zDNwv2aesEmfvntG-iw> <xmx:jEXNZ8JEeysJo3Nsua6oFl7hofBUsPTtIPCSwhNbbtQ-cpfaxuJ-Pg> <xmx:jEXNZ-wuAWPHkBXvfq4_V7c9Lh_jlXMlxVOK7HArq-Is56vBtxXTMg> <xmx:jEXNZwKU1pMBqSvw9yFSXUIvy_5rhCy4wGJyJ0C6zG8jwhZGA3xmfQ> <xmx:jEXNZzVobVW_3WKmT2ulG2AOuTRFCNGqCD4RUIsxyeGuRW8Moa3M7Hmn>
Feedback-ID: i1c3946f2:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <mls@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============8359468409991948246=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Repository Activity Summary Bot <do_not_reply@mnot.net>
To: mls@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20250309073852.EF36994208A@mail2.ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 23:38:52 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: XOKCFDEAQNOBP3P2KDGHXNDGRKXMRH24
X-Message-ID-Hash: XOKCFDEAQNOBP3P2KDGHXNDGRKXMRH24
X-MailFrom: do_not_reply@mnot.net
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] Weekly github digest (MLS Working Group summary)
List-Id: Messaging Layer Security <mls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/rYjHTxYAGg6J2AcKy97BgaxDqMM>
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>



Issues
------
* mlswg/mls-architecture (+38/-2/💬37)
  38 issues created:
  -  [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/312 
  -  [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/311 
  -  [rfced] [BCK21]:  We updated this listing to use the title (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/310 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.4.3.2:  It is not clear to us whether "they" (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/309 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.4.3.1:  In this document's XML file, all other (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/308 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.4.2.1:  We had trouble parsing this sentence. (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/307 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.4.1.1:  For ease of the reader, we expanded (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/306 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.3.3:  Given "dedicated hardware features" in (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/305 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.3.1.1:  This sentence as written appeared to (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/303 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.3.1.2:  Does "both the current AEAD keys for a (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/304 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.3.1.1:  For ease of the reader, we expanded (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/302 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.3.1:  "a per-sender with" in this sentence is (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/301 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.2.4:  Should "the clients' state remain" be (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/300 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.2.2:  "followed" read oddly in this sentence. (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/299 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.2.2:  We had trouble following this sentence. (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/298 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.1.4:  Is tampering by the Delivery Service the (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/296 
  -  [rfced] Section 8.2.2:  Does "Forward" here refer to Forward (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/297 
  -  [rfced] Section 7:  As it appears that "they have" refers to (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/295 
  -  [rfced] Section 7:  This sentence is difficult to parse.  To (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/294 
  -  [rfced] Section 6.9:  We do not see the word "default" or any (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/293 
  -  [rfced] Section 6.4: (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/291 
  -  [rfced] Section 6.4:  It is not clear what "for example" refers (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/292 
  -  [rfced] Section 6.2:  Does "they have" refer to "a user" (in (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/290 
  -  [rfced] Section 6.1:  Because "primary" is used instead of (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/289 
  -  [rfced] Section 6.1:  The comma in this sentence makes it (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/288 
  -  [rfced] Section 5.3:  This sentence does not parse.  If neither (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/287 
  -  [rfced] Section 5.2.2:  Does "offers" refer to the Delivery (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/286 
  -  [rfced] Sections 5.2.1 and 8.1.4:  As it appears that "ones" in (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/285 
  -  [rfced] Sections 5.1 and subsequent:  Do you think other documents may want to refer to specific recommendations in this document?  We wonder whether it would be helpful to number the recommendations (e.g., Recommendation 1, or Req 1). (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/284 
  -  [rfced] Section 5.1:  The only published RFC to date that (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/283 
  -  [rfced] Section 4:  Should "the security considerations" be (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/282 
  -  [rfced] Section 3.4:  "or to key other protocols" reads oddly. (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/281 
  -  [rfced] Sections 2.2 and subsequent:  We found the use of (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/280 
  -  [rfced] Sections 2.2 and subsequent:  After the initial (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/279 
  -  [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/277 
  -  [rfced] Abstract:  We do not see "Group Key Agreement protocol" (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/278 
  -  [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/276 
  -  [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the (by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/275 

  37 issues received 37 new comments:
  - #312  [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/312 [rfced] 
  - #311  [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/311 [rfced] 
  - #310  [rfced] [BCK21]:  We updated this listing to use the title (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/310 [rfced] 
  - #309  [rfced] Section 8.4.3.2:  It is not clear to us whether "they" (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/309 [rfced] 
  - #308  [rfced] Section 8.4.3.1:  In this document's XML file, all other (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/308 [rfced] 
  - #307  [rfced] Section 8.4.2.1:  We had trouble parsing this sentence. (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/307 [rfced] 
  - #306  [rfced] Section 8.4.1.1:  For ease of the reader, we expanded (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/306 [rfced] 
  - #305  [rfced] Section 8.3.3:  Given "dedicated hardware features" in (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/305 [rfced] 
  - #304  [rfced] Section 8.3.1.2:  Does "both the current AEAD keys for a (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/304 [rfced] 
  - #303  [rfced] Section 8.3.1.1:  This sentence as written appeared to (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/303 [rfced] 
  - #302  [rfced] Section 8.3.1.1:  For ease of the reader, we expanded (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/302 [rfced] 
  - #301  [rfced] Section 8.3.1:  "a per-sender with" in this sentence is (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/301 [rfced] 
  - #300  [rfced] Section 8.2.4:  Should "the clients' state remain" be (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/300 [rfced] 
  - #299  [rfced] Section 8.2.2:  "followed" read oddly in this sentence. (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/299 [rfced] 
  - #298  [rfced] Section 8.2.2:  We had trouble following this sentence. (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/298 [rfced] 
  - #297  [rfced] Section 8.2.2:  Does "Forward" here refer to Forward (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/297 [rfced] 
  - #296  [rfced] Section 8.1.4:  Is tampering by the Delivery Service the (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/296 [rfced] 
  - #295  [rfced] Section 7:  As it appears that "they have" refers to (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/295 [rfced] 
  - #294  [rfced] Section 7:  This sentence is difficult to parse.  To (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/294 [rfced] 
  - #293  [rfced] Section 6.9:  We do not see the word "default" or any (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/293 [rfced] 
  - #292  [rfced] Section 6.4:  It is not clear what "for example" refers (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/292 [rfced] 
  - #291  [rfced] Section 6.4: (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/291 [rfced] 
  - #290  [rfced] Section 6.2:  Does "they have" refer to "a user" (in (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/290 [rfced] 
  - #289  [rfced] Section 6.1:  Because "primary" is used instead of (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/289 [rfced] 
  - #288  [rfced] Section 6.1:  The comma in this sentence makes it (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/288 
  - #287  [rfced] Section 5.3:  This sentence does not parse.  If neither (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/287 [rfced] 
  - #286  [rfced] Section 5.2.2:  Does "offers" refer to the Delivery (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/286 [rfced] 
  - #285  [rfced] Sections 5.2.1 and 8.1.4:  As it appears that "ones" in (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/285 [rfced] 
  - #284  [rfced] Sections 5.1 and subsequent:  Do you think other documents may want to refer to specific recommendations in this document?  We wonder whether it would be helpful to number the recommendations (e.g., Recommendation 1, or Req 1). (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/284 [rfced] 
  - #283  [rfced] Section 5.1:  The only published RFC to date that (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/283 [rfced] 
  - #282  [rfced] Section 4:  Should "the security considerations" be (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/282 [rfced] 
  - #281  [rfced] Section 3.4:  "or to key other protocols" reads oddly. (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/281 [rfced] 
  - #280  [rfced] Sections 2.2 and subsequent:  We found the use of (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/280 [rfced] 
  - #279  [rfced] Sections 2.2 and subsequent:  After the initial (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/279 [rfced] 
  - #278  [rfced] Abstract:  We do not see "Group Key Agreement protocol" (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/278 [rfced] 
  - #277  [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/277 [rfced] 
  - #276  [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the (1 by ekr-cibot)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/276 [rfced] 

  2 issues closed:
  -  [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/276 [rfced] 
  -  [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/275 



Pull requests
-------------
* mlswg/mls-architecture (+2/-0/💬5)
  2 pull requests submitted:
  - Add recommendation about KeyPackage expiration (alternative) (by TWal)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/314 
  - Cite a new analysis of TreeKEM (by TWal)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/313 

  4 pull requests received 5 new comments:
  - #313 Cite a new analysis of TreeKEM (2 by TWal, seanturner)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/313 
  - #274 Add recommendation about KeyPackage expiration (1 by seanturner)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/274 
  - #271 Disclaim replay protection (1 by seanturner)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/271 
  - #269 Add recommendation for deletion of `init_key`s (1 by seanturner)
    https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/pull/269 


Repositories tracked by this digest:
-----------------------------------
* https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture
* https://github.com/mlswg/mls-protocol
* https://github.com/mlswg/mls-federation
* https://github.com/mlswg/mls-extensions
* https://github.com/mlswg/mls-implementations
* https://github.com/mlswg/mls-combiner


-- 
To have a summary like this sent to your list, see: https://github.com/ietf-github-services/activity-summary

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status