New Content Types for Messaging Layer Security (MLS)

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 17 April 2026.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Some messaging protocols (ex: XMPP [RFC6120]) make a distinction between regular messages--where each message is relevant, and status or "presence" messages--where only the most recent update per sender is relevant. In addition, some messages may have a sufficiently short relevance (for example, typing notifications) that they can be discarded if the receiver is offline. In large messaging systems with lots of updates, optimizing decryption of such messages, and optionally suppressing delivery of irrelevant message can result in improved performance.¶

This document defines two new MLS [RFC9420] content types: status and ephemeral. These largely act like the application content type, but the new content types each maintain distinct key ratchets in the secret tree. Only the most recent status message from each sender needs to be decrypted. Only ephemeral messages received within a small amount of time (ex: 10 seconds) are relevant, and of those only the most recent from each sender.¶

This allows an application to fast-forward over generations that contain irrelevant messages.¶

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

3. Negotiating Support

If a client supports the mechanism in this document, it adds a supported_content_types extension to its LeafNode.Capabilities.ExtensionTypes with the specific non-default content types it supports (for example, status and/or ephemeral in this specification).¶

If an MLS group GroupContext.RequiredCapabilities.extension_types contains a required_content_types extension, every member of the MLS group MUST be prepared to receive messages with any of the (non-default) content types listed.¶

It also redefines the ContentType enum as shown below.¶

enum {
    reserved(0),
    application(1),
    proposal(2),
    commit(3),
    status(4),
    ephemeral(5),
    (255)
} ContentType;

struct {
   ContentType content_types<V>;
} ContentTypes;

ContentTypes supported_content_types;
ContentTypes required_content_types;

4. Sending and Receiving

If a group lists a specific content type in its required_content_types as described in the previous section, a member MAY send an MLS PrivateMessage with that content type.¶

The construction of the PrivateMessage is the same as for sending an application message, except that the per-sender ratchet is used derived from the relevant content type, as shown in the figure below, which replaces Figure 26 of [RFC9420], and the new version of three structs defined later in this section (FramedContent, FramedContentAuthData, and PrivateMessgeContent) replace those defined in [RFC9420]:¶

struct {
    opaque group_id<V>;
    uint64 epoch;
    Sender sender;
    opaque authenticated_data<V>;

    ContentType content_type;
    select (FramedContent.content_type) {
        case application:
        case status:
        case ephemeral:
          opaque application_data<V>;
        case proposal:
          Proposal proposal;
        case commit:
          Commit commit;
    };
} FramedContent;

struct {
    /* SignWithLabel(., "FramedContentTBS", FramedContentTBS) */
    opaque signature<V>;
    select (FramedContent.content_type) {
        case commit:
            /*
              MAC(confirmation_key,
                  GroupContext.confirmed_transcript_hash)
            */
            MAC confirmation_tag;
        case application:
        case status:
        case ephemeral:
        case proposal:
            struct{};
    };
} FramedContentAuthData;

struct {
    select (PrivateMessage.content_type) {
        case application:
        case status:
        case ephemeral:
          opaque application_data<V>;

        case proposal:
          Proposal proposal;

        case commit:
          Commit commit;
    };

    FramedContentAuthData auth;
    opaque padding[length_of_padding];
} PrivateMessageContent;

All clients in a group need to agree on the "maximum number of steps that clients will move a secret tree ratchet forward in response to a single message before rejecting it" as described in Section 7 of [RFC9750]. If a client is about to exhaust that number of steps for its own status or ephemeral ratchet, it MUST send a new commit.¶

On receipt of a PrivateMessage with a supported, non-default content type, the receiver likewise decrypts the message using the relevant ratchet.¶

5. Security Considerations

TODO Security¶

6. IANA Considerations

This document requests the addition of various new values under the heading of "Messaging Layer Security". Each registration is organized under the relevant registry Type.¶

This document also requests the creation of a new MLS Content Types registry as described in Section 6.2.¶

RFC EDITOR: Please replace XXXX throughout with the RFC number assigned to this document.¶

7. References

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.¶

Author's Address