Re: Re: QUIC-MLS Draft

[John Mattsson <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

While the benefits and performance of MLS in two-party communication warrant further discussion, MLS truly excels in group communication. Has there been any discussion of using MLS in QUIC for multicast scenarios? While I haven’t followed draft-jholland-quic-multicast closely, MLS would likely provide stronger security guarantees.

Cheers,
John Preuß Mattsson

From: Tian, Xisen (LT) <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2025 at 20:27
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Benjamin Dowling <[e-mail]>, Hale, Britta (CIV) <[e-mail]>, Raphael Robert <[e-mail]>, Konrad Kohbrok <[e-mail]>, Bhagya Wimalasiri <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: QUIC-MLS Draft

The link to our draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tian-quic-quicmls/

From: Tian, Xisen (LT) <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 11:25 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: Benjamin Dowling <[e-mail]>, Hale, Britta (CIV) <[e-mail]>, Raphael Robert <[e-mail]>, Konrad Kohbrok <[e-mail]>, Bhagya Wimalasiri <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUIC-MLS Draft
Hello,

My colleagues and I have uploaded a new draft titled “Securing QUIC with MLS” concerning the use of Messaging Layer Security protocol (RFC9420) as an alternative to TLS for QUIC. We are interested in securing QUIC for a growing number of new use-cases [1] where an asynchronous continuous key agreement protocol may be better suited than the synchronous one that TLS uses.

If there is room in the agenda for IETF123 Madrid, we would like to get a 30min speaking slot to talk through the draft and go through any questions/concerns.

[1] TIPTOP WG Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/tiptop/about/


Best regards,

Xisen Tian
PhD Student
Applied Cryptography
Naval Postgraduate School