Re: [Secdispatch] Requesting agenda time for draft-knodel-e2ee-definition

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 07 July 2021 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A17A3A145A; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 06:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.227
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.338, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cbK9jzxhS99y; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4DC3A1455; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 06:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1001::440] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1001:0:0:0:440]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 167D4Siq100496 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Jul 2021 15:04:28 +0200
Authentication-Results:; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=upstairs; t=1625663068; bh=X+ds4SJFHPwv850KGKf9dbe7ZB25GEagf1mTUUODjxw=; h=To:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jsEX2DkpPfFOqrcKYi4DMQhSmC2GpE/TSZpE4G/vJBrtPltOwI2Nu+B5RyvPQ8w3S PvcGWsjJk29Jd/8Ml95vVBdTij+8mGsFT0lP++WOsLzJZuqxMhZS7+X/f58iLssxIg jXK9hDNdBeZnEK6zUP/ZtIYQaX9TMIutsAFHa7W4=
To: Mallory Knodel <>, "" <>,
References: <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2021 15:04:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V39IxtOdFaSJbCKQDmtzvlhRLEclEaAxP"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] Requesting agenda time for draft-knodel-e2ee-definition
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2021 13:04:38 -0000

Hi Mallory,

I am hoping that you don't actually mean to create a new definition of a 
term that has been around at least since 1984.  I *think* what you mean 
to do is to establish an aspirational model that leads to a state in 
which certain conditions hold true.  Would I be wrong?


On 06.07.21 20:16, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I requested time on the agenda to discuss 
>, a 
> relatively new document that my co-authors and I wrote earlier this 
> year. It is a three-part definition for end-to-end encryption (formal, 
> features, user expectations).
> Feedback on the MLS working group list has been encouraging. 
> Additionally I presented at the last MLS interim and it was suggested 
> that secdispatch provide feedback on the best place for this draft, if 
> not MLS.
> I will have -02 in the datatracker before the 111 meeting that brings 
> in more nuance to the "end" problem as it relates to identity, and a 
> nice pointer to a game-based definition.
> I'm hoping to use 10 minutes to present and get feedback on which WG 
> is best to continue work on the draft.
> Thanks!
> -Mallory