Re: [MLS] Use Cases for avoiding Forward Secrecy

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On 28 February 2018 at 23:41, Dennis Jackson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The discussion on PFS has been done to death, both on the TLS mailing
> list and in numerous other places and I would hate to see us repeat it
> for little gain. In the end, TLS 1.3 mandates that PFS be used in
> every connection. I find it hard to imagine that MLS will aspire
> to a weaker security goal than TLS, but as you say, it is for the
> group to decide.

FWIW, I'm assuming that communication security will always have FS.
That's highly desirable in all the markets I work in, although some
don't use TLS to provide it.

So I assume that MLS operates over links secured by TLS (or equivalent).

However, when your protocol is being used to, for example, coordinate
blue light, or MEDEVAC, or whatever, then the integrity of the
archived communications turns out to be quite important.

Dave.