I am surprised that I cannot find a single comment on draft-tian-quic-quicmls on the mailing list, nor any presentations on past agendas. Has QUIC WG understood that draft-tian-quic-quicmls appears to be a _significantly_ smaller security undertaking compared to both draft-jholland-quic-multicast and draft-ietf-quic-extended-key-update?
That said, I think the recent suggestion to establish a dedicated WG to develop a two-party MLS profile, along with its integration into QUIC and (D)TLS, is a much better approach. Cheers, John Preuß Mattsson From: John Mattsson <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 27 February 2026 at 11:09 To: Tian, Xisen (LT) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Dowling <[email protected]>, Hale, Britta (CIV) <[email protected]>, Raphael Robert <[email protected]>, Konrad Kohbrok <[email protected]>, Bhagya Wimalasiri <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Re: QUIC-MLS Draft 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) <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 1 July 2025 at 20:27 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Dowling <[email protected]>, Hale, Britta (CIV) <[email protected]>, Raphael Robert <[email protected]>, Konrad Kohbrok <[email protected]>, Bhagya Wimalasiri <[email protected]> Subject: Re: QUIC-MLS Draft The link to our draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tian-quic-quicmls/ From: Tian, Xisen (LT) <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 11:25 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Dowling <[email protected]>, Hale, Britta (CIV) <[email protected]>, Raphael Robert <[email protected]>, Konrad Kohbrok <[email protected]>, Bhagya Wimalasiri <[email protected]> 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
