]> Cisco

rlb@ipv.sx

The Matrix.org Foundation C.I.C.

matthew@matrix.org

Phoenix R&D

konrad.kohbrok@datashrine.de

Unaffiliated

rohan.ietf@gmail.com

The Matrix.org Foundation C.I.C.

travisr@matrix.org

Phoenix R&D

ietf@raphaelrobert.com

Applications and Real-Time More Instant Messaging Interoperability mimi interoperable messaging chat secure messaging This document specifies the More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI) transport protocol, which allows users of different messaging providers to interoperate in group chats (rooms), including to send and receive messages, share room policy, and add participants to and remove participants from rooms. MIMI describes messages between providers, leaving most aspects of the provider-internal client-server communication up to the provider. MIMI integrates the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol to provide end-to-end security assurances, including authentication of protocol participants, confidentiality of messages exchanged within a room, and agreement on the state of the room. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the More Instant Messaging Interoperability Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction The More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI) transport protocol enables providers of end-to-end encrypted instant messaging to interoperate. As described in the MIMI architecture , group chats and direct messages are described in terms of "rooms". Each MIMI protocol room is hosted at a single provider (the "hub" provider"), but allows users from different providers to become participants in the room. The hub provider is responsible for ordering and distributing messages, enforcing policy, and authorizing messages. It also keeps a copy of the room state, which includes the room policy and participant list, which it can provide to new joiners. Each provider also stores initial keying material for its own users (who may be offline). This document describes the communication among different providers necessary to support messaging application functionality, for example:

• Sharing room policy
• Adding and removing participants in a room
• Exchanging secure messages

In support of these functions, the protocol also has primitives to fetch initial keying material and fetch the current state of the underlying end-to-end encryption protocol for the room. Messages sent inside each room are end-to-end encrypted using the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol , and each room is associated with an MLS group. MLS also ensures that clients in a room agree on the room policy and participation. MLS is integrated into MIMI in such a way as to ensure that a client is joined to a room's MLS group only if the client's user is a participant in the room, and that all clients in the group agree on the state of the room (including, for example, the room's participant list).

Known Gaps In this version of the document, we have tried to capture enough concrete functionality to enable basic application functionality, while defining enough of a protocol framework to indicate how to add other necessary functionality. The following functions are likely to be needed by the complete protocol, but are not covered here:

Authorization policy:

In this document, we introduce a notional concept of roles for participants, and permissions for roles. Actual messaging systems have more complex and well-specified authorization policies about which clients can take which actions in a room.

Advanced join/leave flows:

In this document, all adds / removes / joins / leaves are initiated from within the group, or by a new joiner who already has permission to join, as this aligns well with MLS. Messaging applications support a variety of other flows, some of which this protocol will need to support.

Identifiers:

Certain entities in the MIMI system need to be identified in the protocol. In this document, we define a notional syntax for identifiers, but a more concrete one should be defined.

Abuse reporting:

There is no mechanism in this document for reporting abusive behavior to a messaging provider.

Identifier resolution:

In some cases, the identifier used to initiate communications with a user might be different from the identifier that should be used internally. For example, a user-visible handle might need to be mapped to a durable internal identifier. This document provides no mechanism for such resolution.

Authentication

While MLS provides basic message authentication, users should also be able to (cryptographically) tie the identity of other users to their respective providers. Further authentication such as tying clients to their users (or the user's other clients) may also be desirable.

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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Terms and definitions are inherited from . We also make use of terms from the MLS protocol . Throughout this document, the examples use the TLS Presentation Language and the semantics of HTTP respectively as placeholder a set of binary encoding mechanism and transport semantics. The protocol layering of the MIMI transport protocol is as follows:

1. An application layer that enables messaging functionality
2. A security layer that provides end-to-end security guarantees:
   • Confidentiality for messages
   • Authentication of actors making changes to rooms
   • Agreement on room state across the clients involved in a room
3. A transport layer that provides secure delivery of protocol objects between servers.

MIMI protocol layering

MIMI uses MLS for end-to-end security, using the MLS AppSync proposal type to efficiently synchronize room state across the clients involved in a room . The MIMI transport is based on HTTPS over mutually-authenticated TLS.

Example protocol flow This section walks through a basic scenario that illustrates how a room works in the MIMI protocol. The scenario involves the following actors:

• Service providers a.example, b.example, and c.example represented by servers ServerA, ServerB, and ServerC respectively
• Users Alice (alice), Bob (bob) and Cathy (cathy) of the service providers a.example, b.example, and c.example respectively.
• Clients ClientA1, ClientA2, ClientB1, etc. belonging to these users
• A room clubhouse hosted by hub provider a.example where the three users interact.

Inside the protocol, each provider is represented by a domain name in the host production of the authority of a MIMI URI . Specific hosts or servers are represented by domain names, but not by MIMI URIs. Examples of different types of identifiers represented in a MIMI URI are shown in the table below: MIMI URI examples

Identifier type	Example URI
Provider	mimi://a.example
User	mimi://a.example/u/alice
Client	mimi://a.example/d/ClientA1
Room	mimi://a.example/r/clubhouse
MLS group	mimi://a.example/g/clubhouse

As noted in , the MIMI protocol only defines interactions between service providers' servers. Interactions between clients and servers within a service provider domain are shown here for completeness, but surrounded by [[ double brackets ]].

Alice Creates a Room The first step in the lifetime of a MIMI room is its creation on the hub server. This operation is local to the service provider, and does not entail any MIMI protocol operations. However, it must establish the initial state of the room, which is then the basis for protocol operations related to the room. For authorization purposes, MIMI uses permissions based on room-defined roles. For example, a room might have a role named "admin", which has canAddUser, canRemoveUser, and canSetUserRole permisions. Here, we assume that Alice uses ClientA1 to create a room with the following base policy properties:

• Room Identifier: mimi://a.example/r/clubhouse
• Roles: admin = [canAddUser, canRemoveUser, canSetUserRole]

And the following participant list:

• Participants: [[mimi://a.example/u/alice, "admin"]]

ClientA1 also creates an MLS group with group ID mimi://a.example/g/clubhouse and ensures via provider-local operations that Alice's other clients are members of this MLS group.

Alice adds Bob to the Room Adding Bob to the room entails operations at two levels. First, Bob's user identity must be added to the room's participant list. Second, Bob's clients must be added to the room's MLS group. The process of adding Bob to the room thus begins by Alice fetching key material for Bob's clients. Alice then updates the room by sending an MLS Commit over the following proposals:

• An AppSync proposal updating the room state by adding Bob to the participant list
• Add proposals for Bob's clients

The MIMI protocol interactions are between Alice's server ServerA and Bob's server ServerB. ServerB stores KeyPackages on behalf of Bob's devices. ServerA performs the key material fetch on Alice's behalf, and delivers the resulting KeyPackages to Alice's clients. Both ServerA and ServerB remember the sources of the KeyPackages they handle, so that they can route a Welcome message for those KeyPackages to the proper recipients -- ServerA to ServerB, and ServerB to Bob's clients.

• NOTE: In the protocol, it is necessary to have consent (see ) and access control on these operations. We have elided that step here in the interest of simplicity.

Alice Fetches KeyPackages for Bob's Clients | /keyMaterial | | | +-------------->| | | | 200 OK | | | KPs |<--------------+ | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | | | | | | ClientB*->ServerB: [[ Store KeyPackages ]] ClientA1->ServerA: [[ request KPs for Bob ]] ServerA->ServerB: POST /keyMaterial KeyMaterialRequest ServerB: Verify that Alice is authorized to fetch KeyPackages ServerB: Mark returned KPs as reserved for Alice's use ServerB->ServerA: 200 OK KeyMaterialResponse ServerA: Remember that these KPs go to b.example ServerA->ClientA1: [[ KPs ]] ]]>

Alice Adds Bob to the Room and Bob's Clients to the MLS Group | | | | Accepted | /notify | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+-------------->| | | | 200 OK | Welcome, Tree | | |<--------------+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | ClientA1: Prepare Commit over AppSync(+Bob), Add* ClientA1->ServerA: [[ Commit, Welcome, GroupInfo?, RatchetTree? ]] ServerA: Verify that AppSync, Adds are allowed by policy ServerA: Identifies Welcome domains based on KP hash in Welcome ServerA->ServerB: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Intro{ Welcome, RatchetTree? } ServerB: Recognizes that Welcome is adding Bob to room clubhouse ServerB->ClientB*: [[ Welcome, RatchetTree? ]] ]]>

Bob adds Cathy to the Room The process of adding Bob was a bit abbreviated because Alice is a user of the hub service provider. When Bob adds Cathy, we see the full process, involving the same two steps (KeyPackage fetch followed by Add), but this time indirected via the hub server ServerA. Also, now that there are users on ServerB involved in the room, the hub ServerA will have to distribute the Commit adding Cathy and Cathy's clients to ServerB as well as forwarding the Welcome to ServerC.

Bob Fetches KeyPackages for Cathy's Clients | /keyMaterial | /keyMaterial | | | +-------------->+-------------->| | | | 200 OK | 200 OK | | | KPs |<--------------+<--------------+ | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | | | | | | | | ClientC*->ServerC: [[ Store KeyPackages ]] ClientB1->ServerB: [[ request KPs for Bob ]] ServerB->ServerA: POST /keyMaterial KeyMaterialRequest ServerA->ServerC: POST /keyMaterial KeyMaterialRequest ServerB: Verify that Bob is authorized to fetch KeyPackages ServerB: Mark returned KPs as reserved for Bob's use ServerC->ServerA: 200 OK KeyMaterialResponse ServerA: Remember that these KPs go to b.example ServerA->ServerB: 200 OK KeyMaterialResponse ServerB->ClientB1: [[ KPs ]] ]]>

Bob Adds Cathy to the Room and Cathy's Clients to the MLS Group | /update | | | | | | +---------->| | | | | | | 200 OK | | | | | | |<----------+ | | | | | Accepted | | /notify | Welcome, | | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +---------->| Tree | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | /notify | Commit +~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | |<----------+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | Commit | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | | | | | ClientB1: Prepare Commit over AppSync(+Cathy), Add* ClientB1->ServerB: [[ Commit, Welcome, GroupInfo?, RatchetTree? ]] ServerB->ServerA: POST /update/a.example/r/clubhouse CommitBundle ServerA: Verify that Adds are allowed by policy ServerA->ServerB: 200 OK ServerA->ServerC: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Intro{ Welcome, RatchetTree? } ServerC: Recognizes that Welcome is adding Cathy to clubhouse ServerC->ClientC*: [[ Welcome, RatchetTree? ]] ServerA->ServerB: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Commit ServerB->ClientB*: [[ Commit ]] ServerA->ClientA*: [[ Commit ]] ]]>

Cathy Sends a Message Now that Alice, Bob, and Cathy are all in the room, Cathy wants to say hello to everyone. Cathy's client encapsulates the message in an MLS PrivateMessage and sends it to ServerC, who forwards it to the hub ServerA on Cathy's behalf. Assuming Cathy is allowed to speak in the room, ServerA will forward Cathy's message to the other servers involved in the room, who distribute it to their clients.

Cathy Sends a Message to the Room | /submit | | | | | | +-------------->| | | | | | | 200 OK | | | | | | |<--------------+ | | | | | Accepted | | /notify | | | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +-------------->| Message | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | /notify | | | | | | |<--------------+ | | | | | | Message | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | Message | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | | | | ClientC1->ServerC: [[ MLSMessage(PrivateMessage) ]] ServerC->ServerA: POST /submit/a.example/r/clubhouse MLSMessage(PrivateMessage) ServerA: Verifies that message is allowed ServerA->ServerC: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Message{ MLSMessage(PrivateMessage) } ServerA->ServerB: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Message{ MLSMessage(PrivateMessage) } ServerA->ClientA*: [[ MLSMessage(PrivateMessage) ]] ServerB->ClientB*: [[ MLSMessage(PrivateMessage) ]] ServerC->ClientC*: [[ MLSMessage(PrivateMessage) ]] ]]>

Bob Leaves the Room A user removing another user follows the same flow as adding the user. The user performing the removal creates an MLS commit covering Remove proposals for all of the removed user's devices, and an AppSync proposal updating the room state to remove the removed user from the room's participant list. One's own user leaving is slightly more complicated than removing another user, because the leaving user cannot remove all of their devices from the MLS group. Instead, the leave happens in three steps:

1. The leaving client constructs MLS Remove proposals for all of the user's devices (including the leaving client), and an AppSync proposal that removes its user from the participant list.
2. The leaving client sends these proposals to the hub. The hub caches the proposals.
3. The next time a client attempts to commit, the hub requires the client to include the cached proposals.

The hub thus guarantees the leaving client that they will be removed as soon as possible.

Bob Leaves the Room | /update | | | | | +-------------->| | | | | | 200 OK | | | | | |<--------------+ | | | | Accepted | | /notify | | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ +-------------->| | | | | | | Proposals | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | | | | | | | | Commit(Props) | | | | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | | | | /update | | | | | |<--------------+ | | | | | 200 OK | | | | | +-------------->| | | | | | | Accepted | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | /notify | /notify | | | | Commit |<--------------+-------------->| Commit | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | | | | ClientB1: Prepare Remove*, AppSync(-Bob) ClientB1->ServerB: [[ Remove*, AppSync ]] ServerB->ServerA: POST /update/a.example/r/clubhouse Remove*, AppSync ServerA: Verify that Removes, AppSync are allowed by policy; cache ServerA->ServerB: 200 OK ServerA->ServerC: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Proposals ServerC1->ClientC1: [[ Proposals ]] ClientC1->ServerC: [[ Commit(Props), Welcome, GroupInfo?, RatchetTree? ]] ServerC->ServerA: POST /update/a.example/r/clubhousee CommitBundle ServerA: Check whether Commit includes queued proposals; accept ServerA->ServerC: 200 OK ServerA->ServerB: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Commit ServerA->ServerC: POST /notify/a.example/r/clubhouse Commit ServerB->ClientB1: [[ Commit ]] ServerC->ClientC2: [[ Commit ]] ServerC->ClientC1: [[ Commit ]] (up to provider) ]]>

Cathy adds a new device Many users have multiple clients often running on different devices (for example a phone, a tablet, and a computer). When a user creates a new client, that client needs to be able to join all the MLS groups associated with the rooms in which the user is a participant. In MLS in order to initiate joining a group the joining client needs to get the current GroupInfo and ratchet_tree, and then send an External Commit to the hub. In MIMI, the hub keeps or reconstructs a copy of the GroupInfo, assuming that other clients may not be available to assist the client with joining. For Cathy's new client (ClientC3) to join the MLS group and therefore fully participate in the room with Alice, ClientC3 needs to fetch the MLS GroupInfo, and then generate an External Commit adding ClientC3. Cathy's new client sends the External Commit to the room's MLS group by sending an /update to the room.

Cathy Adds a new Client | /groupInfo | | | | | | |-------------->| | | | | | GroupInfo + | 200 OK | | | | | | tree |<--------------| | | | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | | | | | | | | | | | | | External | | | | | | | Commit, etc. | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| /update | | | | | | +-------------->| | | | | | | 200 OK | | | | | | |<--------------+ | | | | | Accepted | | Commit | | | | |<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | | | | | | | /notify | | | | | + +-------------->| Commit | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | /notify | | | | | | |<--------------+ | | | | | | Commit | | | | | | +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | | | | | | | ClientC3->ServerC: [[ request current GroupInfo ]] ServerC->ServerA: POST /groupInfo/a.example/clubhouse ServerA: Verify that ClientC3 has authorization to join the room ServerA->ServerC: 200 OK w/ current GroupInfo and ratchet tree ServerC->ClientC3: [[ GroupInfo, tree ]] ClientC3: Prepare External Commit Add* ClientC3->ServerC: [[ Commit, GroupInfo?, RatchetTree? ]] ServerC->ServerA: POST /update/a.example/clubhouse CommitBundle ServerA: Verify that Commit is valid and ClientC3 is authorized ServerA->ServerC: 200 OK ServerC->ClientC3: [[ External Commit was accepted ]] ServerA->ClientA*: [[ Commit ]] ServerA->ServerB: POST /notify/a.example/clubhouse Commit ServerB->ClientB*: [[ Commit ]] ServerA->ServerC: POST /notify/a.example/clubhouse Commit ServerC->ClientC*: [[ Commit ]] ]]>

Services required at each layer

Transport layer MIMI servers communicate using HTTPS. The HTTP request MUST identify the source and target providers for the request, in the following way:

• The target provider is indicated using a Host header . If the provider is using a non-standard port, then the port component of the Host header is ignored.
• The source provider is indicated using a From header . The mailbox production in the From header MUST use the addr-spec variant, and the local-part of the address MUST contain the fixed string mimi. Thus, the content of the From header will be mimi@a.example, where a.example is the domain name of the source provider.

• NOTE: The use of the From header field here is not really well-aligned with its intended use. The WG should consider whether this is correct, or whether a new header field would be better. Perhaps something like "From-Host" to match Host?

The TLS connection underlying the HTTPS connection MUST be mutually authenticated. The certificates presented in the TLS handshake MUST authenticate the source and target provider domains, according to . The bodies of HTTP requests and responses are defined by the individual endpoints defined in .

End-to-End Security Layer Every MIMI room has an MLS group associated to it, which provides end-to-end security guarantees. The clients participating in the room manage the MLS-level membership by sending Commit messages covering Add and Remove proposals. Every application message sent within a room is authenticated and confidentiality-protected by virtue of being encapsulated in an MLS PrivateMessage object. MIMI uses the MLS application state synchronization mechanism () to ensure that the clients involved in a MIMI room agree on the state of the room. Each MIMI message that changes the state of the room is encapsulated in an AppSync proposal and transmitted inside an MLS PublicMessage object. The PublicMessage encapsulation provides sender authentication, including the ability for actors outside the group (e.g., servers involved in the room) to originate AppSync proposals. Encoding room state changes in MLS proposals ensures that a client will not process a commit that confirms a state change before processing the state change itself.

• TODO: A little more needs to be said here about how MLS is used. For example: What types of credential are required / allowed? If servers are going to be allowed to introduce room changes, how are their keys provisioned as external signers? Need to maintain the membership and the list of queued proposals.

Application Layer Servers in MIMI provide a few functions that enable messaging applications. All servers act as publication points for key material used to add their users to rooms. The hub server for a room tracks the state of the room, and controls how the room's state evolves, e.g., by ensuring that changes are compliant with the room's policy. Non-hub servers facilitate interactions between their clients and the hub server. In this section, we describe the state that servers keep. The following top level section describes the HTTP endpoints exposed to enable these functions.

Server State Every MIMI server is a publication point for users' key material, via the keyMaterial endpoint discussed in . To support this endpoint, the server stores a set of KeyPackages, where each KeyPackage belongs to a specific user and device. Each KeyPackage includes a list of its MLS client's capabilities (MLS protocol versions, cipher suites, extensions, proposal types, and credential types). When claiming KeyPackages, the requester includes the list of RequiredCapabilites to ensure the new joiner is compatible with and capable of participating in the corresponding room. The hub server for the room stores the state of the room, comprising:

• The base policy of the room, which does not depend on the specific participants in the room. For example, this includes the room roles and their permissions.
• The participant list: a list of the users who are participants of the room, and each user's role in the room.

• TODO: We need a more full description of the room, room state syntax.

When a client requests key material via the hub, the hub records the KeyPackageRef values for the returned KeyPackages, and the identity of the provider from which they were received. This information is then used to route Welcome message to the proper provider.

Participant List Changes The participant list can be changed by adding or removing users, or changing a user's role. These changes are described without a specific syntax as a list of adds, removes, and role changes:

Changing the state of the room

To put these changes into effect, a client or server encodes them in an AppSync proposal, signs the proposal as a PublicMessage, and submits them to the update endpoint on the hub.

MIMI Endpoints and Framing This section describes the specific endpoints necessary to provide the functionality in the example flow. The framing for each endpoint includes a protocol so that different variations of the end-to-end encryption can be used.

• TODO: Determine the what needs to be included in the protocol. MIMI version, e2e protocol version, etc.

The syntax of the MIMI protocol messages are described using the TLS presentation language format ().

Directory Like the ACME protocol (See ), the MIMI protocol uses a directory document to convey the HTTPS URLs used to reach certain endpoints (as opposed to hard coding the endpoints). The directory URL is discovered using the mimi-protocol-directory well-known URI. The response is a JSON document with URIs for each type of endpoint.

Fetch Key Material This action attempts to claim initial keying material for all the clients of a single user at a specific provider. The keying material is designed for use in a single room and may not be reused. It uses the HTTP POST method. The target user's URI is listed in the request path. KeyPackages requested using this primitive MUST be sent via the hub provider of whatever room they will be used in. (If this is not the case, the hub provider will be unable to forward a Welcome message to the target provider). The path includes the target user. The request body includes the protocol (currently just MLS 1.0), and the requesting user. When the request is being made in the context of adding the target user to a room, the request MUST include the room ID for which the KeyPackage is intended, as the target may have only granted consent for a specific room. For MLS, the request includes a non-empty list of acceptable MLS ciphersuites, and an MLS RequiredCapabilities object (which contains credential types, non-default proposal types, and extensions) required by the requesting provider (these lists can be an empty). The request body has the following form. ; } IdentifierUri; struct { Protocol protocol; IdentifierUri requestingUser; IdentifierUri targetUser; IdentifierUri roomId; select (protocol) { case mls10: CipherSuite acceptableCiphersuites; RequiredCapabilities requiredCapabilities; }; } KeyMaterialRequest; ]]> The response contains a user status code that indicates keying material was returned for all the user's clients (success), that keying material was returned for some of their clients (partialSuccess), or a specific user code indicating failure. If the user code is success or partialSuccess, each client is enumerated in the response. Then for each client with a client success code, the structure includes initial keying material (a KeyPackage for MLS 1.0). If the client's code is nothingCompatible, the client's capabilities are optionally included (The client's capabilities could be omitted for privacy reasons.) If the user code is noCompatibleMaterial, the provider MAY populate the clients list. For any other user code, the provider MUST NOT populate the clients list. Keying material provided from one response MUST NOT be provided in any other response. The target provider MUST NOT provide expired keying material (ex: an MLS KeyPackage containing a LeafNode with a notAfter time past the current date and time). clientCapabilities; }; }; } ClientKeyMaterial; struct { Protocol protocol; KeyMaterialUserCode userStatus; IdentifierUri userUri; ClientKeyMaterial clients; } KeyMaterialResponse; ]]> The semantics of the KeyMaterialUserCode are as follows:

• success indicates that key material was provided for every client of the target user.
• partialSuccess indicates that key material was provided for at least one client of the target user.
• incompatibleProtocol indicates that either one of providers supports the protocol requested, or none of the clients of the target user support the protocol requested.
• noCompatibleMaterial indicates that none of the clients was able to supply key material compatible with the requiredCapabilities field in the request.
• userUnknown indicates that the target user is not known to the target provider.
• noConsent indicates that the requester does not have consent to fetch key material for the target user. The target provider can use this response as a catch all and in place of other status codes such as userUnknown if desired to preserve the privacy of its users.
• noConsentForThisRoom indicates that the target user might have allowed a request for another room, but does not for this room. If the provider does not wish to make this distinction, it can return noConsent instead.
• userDeleted indicates that the target provider wishes the requester to know that the target user was previously a valid user of the system and has been deleted. A target provider can of course use userUnknown if the provider does wish to keep or specify this distinction.

The semantics of the KeyMaterialClientCode are as follows:

• success indicates that key material was provided for the specified client.
• keyMaterialExhausted indicates that there was no keying material available for the specified client.
• nothingCompatible indicates that the specified clients had no key material compatible with the requiredCapabilities field in the request.

At minimum, as each MLS KeyPackage is returned to a requesting provider (on behalf of a requesting IM client), the target provider needs to associate its KeyPackageRef with the target client and the hub provider needs to associate its KeyPackageRef with the target provider. This ensures that Welcome messages can be correctly routed to the target provider and client. These associations can be deleted after a Welcome message is forwarded or after the KeyPackage leaf_node.lifetime.not_after time has passed.

Update Room State Adds, removes, and policy changes to the room are all forms of updating the room state. They are accomplished using the update transaction which is used to update the room base policy, participation list, or its underlying MLS group. It uses the HTTP POST method. Any change to the participant list or room policy (including authorization policy) is communicated via an AppSync proposal type with the applicationId of mimiParticipantList or mimiRoomPolicy respectively. When adding a user, the proposal containing the participant list change MUST be committed either before or simultaneously with the corresponding MLS operation. Removing an active user from a participant list or banning an active participant likewise also happen simultaneously with any MLS changes made to the commit removing the participant. A hub provider which observes that an active participant has been removed or banned from the room, MUST prevent any of its clients from sending or receiving any additional application messages in the corresponding MLS group; MUST prevent any of those clients from sending Commit messages in that group; and MUST prevent it from sending any proposals except for Remove and SelfRemove proposals for its users in that group. The update request body is described below, using the RatchetTreeOption and PartialGroupInfo structs defined in : welcome; GroupInfoOption groupInfoOption; RatchetTreeOption ratchetTreeOption; case proposal: /* a list of additional proposals, each represented */ /* as either PublicMessage or SemiPrivateMessage */ MLSMessage moreProposals; } HandshakeBundle; enum { reserved(0), full(1), partial(2), (255) } GroupInfoRepresentation; struct { GroupInfoRepresentation representation; select (representation) { case full: GroupInfo groupInfo; case partial: PartialGroupInfo partialGroupInfo; } } GroupInfoOption; struct { select (room.protocol) { case mls10: HandshakeBundle bundle; }; } UpdateRequest; ]]> The semantics of GroupInfoRepresentation are as follows:

• full means that the entire GroupInfo will be included.
• partial means that a PartialGroupInfo struct will be shared and that the Distribution Service is expected to reconstruct the GroupInfo as described in .

For example, in the first use case described in the Protocol Overview, Alice creates a Commit containing an AppSync proposal adding Bob (mimi://b.example/b/bob), and Add proposals for all Bob's MLS clients. Alice includes the Welcome message which will be sent for Bob, a GroupInfo object for the hub provider, and complete ratchet_tree extension. A handshake message could be sent by the client as an MLS PublicMessage (which is visible to all providers), or as an MLS SemiPrivateMessage encrypted for the members and the hub provider as the sole external_receiver. (The contents and sender of a SemiPrivateMessage would not be visible to other providers). The use of SemiPrivateMessage allows the Hub to accomplish its policy enforcement responsibilities without the other providers being aware of the membership of non-local users. The response body is described below: ; }; } UpdateRoomResponse ]]> The semantics of the UpdatedResponseCode values are as follows:

• success indicates the UpdateRequest was accepted and will be distributed.
• wrongEpoch indicates that the hub provider is using a different epoch. The currentEpoch is provided in the response.
• notAllowed indicates that some type of policy or authorization prevented the hub provider from accepting the UpdateRequest.
• invalidProposal indicates that at least one proposal is invalid. A list of invalidProposals is provided in the response.

Submit a Message End-to-end encrypted (application) messages are submitted to the hub for authorization and eventual fanout using an HTTP POST request. The request body is as follows: If the protocol is MLS 1.0, the request body (appMessage) is an MLSMessage with a WireFormat of PrivateMessage, and a content_type of application. The sendingUri is a valid URI of the sender and is an active participant in the room. The response indicates if the message was accepted by the hub provider. If a frankingTag was included in the FrankAAD extension in the PrivateMessage Additional Authenticated Data (AAD) in the request, the server attempts to frank the message and includes the serverFrank in a successful response (see the next subsection). The semantics of the SubmitResponseCode values are as follows:

• success indicates the SubmitMessageRequest was accepted and will be distributed.
• notAllowed indicates that some type of policy or authorization prevented the hub provider from accepting the UpdateRequest. This could include nonsensical inputs such as an MLS epoch more recent than the hub's.
• epochTooOld indicates that the hub provider is using a new MLS epoch for the group. The currentEpoch is provided in the response.

• ISSUE: Do we want to offer a distinction between regular application messages and ephemeral applications messages (for example "is typing" notifications), which do not need to be queued at the target provider.

Message Franking Franking is the placing of a cryptographic "stamp" on a message. In the MIMI context, the Hub is able to mark that it received a message without learning the message content. A receiver that decrypts the message can use a valid frank to prove it was received by the Hub and that the content was sent by a specific sender. Outsiders (including follower providers) never learn the content of the message, nor the sender. Franking was popularized by Facebook and described in their whitepaper about their end-to-end encryption system. This franking mechanism is largely motivated by that solution with two significant changes as discussed in the final paragraph of this section.

Client creation and sending When ready to send an application message with the MIMI content format, the sender generates a new cryptographically random 256-bit franking_key. An example mechanism to generate the franking_key safely is discussed in . Next the sender attaches to the message the franking_key and any other fields the sender wishes to commit that are not otherwise represented in the content. For a MIMI content object, the sender creates a CBOR "FrankingAssertion" map containing the franking_key, sender URI, and room URI. It adds this FrankingAssertion to the extensions map at the top level of the MIMI content using the integer key TBD1. Note that this assertion does not vouch for the validity of these values, it just means that the sender is claiming it sent the values in the content, and cannot later deny to a receiver that it sent them. Then the client calculates the franking_tag, as the HMAC SHA256 of the application_data (which includes the FrankingAssertion extension), using the franking_key: The client includes the franking_tag in the Additional Authenticated Data of the MLS PrivateMessage using the Safe Extension FrankAAD. The client uses the MIMI submitMessage to send its message, and also asserts a sender identity to the Hub, which could be a valid pseudonym, and needs to match the sender URI value embedded in the message. If the message is accepted, the response includes the accepted timestamp and the serverFrank (generated by the server).

Hub processing The Hub relies on a per-epoch secret shared among the members of the group and itself to obfuscate the message metadata (the context) the Hub uses while franking. It derives the franking_context_secret (with the label "franking_context") from the ap_exporter_secret in the Associated Party Key Schedule .

The Extended Associated Party Key Schedule DeriveSecret(., "ap_exporter") | = ap_exporter_secret | | | | V V DeriveSecret(., "init") DeriveSecret(., "franking_context") | = franking_context_secret | | V init_secret_[n] ]]>

When the Hub receives an acceptable application message with the FrankAAD AAD extension and a valid sender identity, it calculates a server frank for the message as follows: HUBkey is a secret symmetric key used on the Hub which the Hub can use to verify its own tags. The Hub fans out the encrypted message (which includes the franking_tag), the serverFrank, the acceptedTimestamp, the room URI, and the franking_context_hash. Note that the senderURI is not included in the application message, so the sender can remain anonymous with respect to follower providers.

Receiver verification of frank When a client receives and decrypts an otherwise valid application message from a hub provider, the client looks for the existence of a frank (consisting of the franking_tag in the AAD, the serverFrank and the franking_context_hash. If so, it derives the franking_context_secret from the ap_exporter_secret in the Associated Party Key Schedule ; then it verifies the construction of the franking_tag from the content of the message, and the construction of the franking_context_hash from the sender URI, room ID, acceptedTimestamp, and franking_context_secret. The receiving client receives a sender identifier in three different locations. The receiver verifies that they are all the same:

• the sender's identity in its credential in its MLS LeafNode
• the sender's identity asserted in the FrankingAssertion map inside the MIMI Content
• the (hidden) sender's identity in the context used to create the serverFrank. The client hashes the concatenation of the sender's identity, the room ID, and the acceptedTimestamp. If this hash matches the context_validation hash, then the identity used by the server was correct.

The receiver needs to store the frank with the decoded message so it can be used later.

Comparison with the Facebook franking scheme Unlike in the Facebook franking scheme , the sender "commits to" its franking_tag as Additional Authenticated Data (AAD) inside the end-to-end encrypted message, and the hub only sends a hash of its context. This first change insures that the client cannot come up with another franking_key and message that has the same franking_tag . According to , "... [Facebook's] franking scheme does not bind [the franking tag] to [the ciphertext] by including [the franking tag] in the associated data during encryption". The second change allows receivers to validate the sender URI in the hub's context, without revealing the sender URI to follower providers.

Fanout Messages and Room Events If the hub provider accepts an application or handshake message (proposal or commit) message, it forwards that message to all other providers with active participants in the room and all local clients which are active members. This is described as fanning the message out. One can think of fanning a message out as presenting an ordered list of MLS-protected events to the next "hop" toward the receiving client. An MLS Welcome message is sent to the providers and local users associated with the KeyPackageRef values in the secrets array of the Welcome. In the case of a Welcome message, a RatchetTreeOption (see Section 3 of ) is also included in the FanoutMessage. The hub provider also fans out any messages which originate from itself (ex: MLS External Proposals). The hub can include multiple concatenated FanoutMessage objects relevant to the same room. This endpoint uses the HTTP POST method.

• NOTE: Correctly fanning out Welcome messages relies on the hub and target providers storing the KeyPackageRef of claimed KeyPackages.

A client which receives a success to either an UpdateRoomResponse or a SubmitMessageResponse can view this as a commitment from the hub provider that the message will eventually be distributed to the group. The hub is not expected to forward the client's own message to the client or its provider. However, the client and its provider need to be prepared to receive the client's (effectively duplicate) message. This situation can occur during failover in high availability recovery scenarios. Clients that are being removed SHOULD receive the corresponding Commit message, so they can recognize that they have been removed and clean up their internal state. A removed client might not receive a commit if it was removed as a malicious or abusive client, or if it obviously deleted. The response to a FanoutMessage contains no body. The HTTP response code indicates if the messages in the request were accepted (201 response code), or if there was an error. The hub need not wait for a response before sending the next fanout message. If the hub server does not contain an HTTP 201 response code, then it SHOULD retry the request, respecting any guidance provided by the server in HTTP header fields such as Retry-After. If a follower server receives a duplicate request to the /notify endpoint, in the sense of a request from the same hub server with the same request body as a previous /notify request, then the follower server MUST return a 201 Accepted response. In such cases, the follower server SHOULD process only the first request; subsequent duplicate requests SHOULD be ignored (despite the success response).

• NOTE: These deduplication provisions require follower servers to track which request bodies they have received from which hub servers. Since the matching here is byte-exact, it can be done by keeping a rolling list of hashes of recent messages. This byte-exact replay criterion might not be the right deduplication strategy. There might be situations where it is valid for the same hub server to send the same payload multiple times, e.g., due to accidental collisions. If this is a concern, then an explicit transaction ID could be introduced. The follower server would still have to keep a list of recently seen transaction IDs, but deduplication could be done irrespective of the content of request bodies.

Claim group key information When a client joins an MLS group without an existing member adding the client to the MLS group, that is called an external join. This is useful a) when a new client of an existing user needs to join the groups of all the user's rooms. It can also be used b) when a client did not have key packages available but their user is already in the participation list for the corresponding room, c) when joining an open room, or d) when joining using an external authentication joining code. In MIMI, external joins are accomplished by fetching the MLS GroupInfo for a room's MLS group, and then sending an external commit incorporating the GroupInfo. The GroupInfoRequest uses the HTTP POST method. The request provides an MLS credential proving the requesting client's real or pseudonymous identity. This user identity is used by the hub to correlate this request with the subsequent external commit. The credential may constitute sufficient permission to authorize providing the GroupInfo and later joining the group. Alternatively, the request can include an optional opaque joining code, which the requester could use to prove permission to fetch the GroupInfo, even if it is not yet a participant. The request also provides a signature public key corresponding to the requester's credential. It also specifies a CipherSuite which merely needs to be one ciphersuite in common with the hub. It is needed only to specify the algorithms used to sign the GroupInfoRequest and GroupInfoResponse. ; }; } GroupInfoRequestTBS; struct { Protocol protocol; select (protocol) { case mls10: CipherSuite cipher_suite; SignaturePublicKey requestingSignatureKey; Credential requestingCredential; HPKEPublicKey groupInfoPublicKey; opaque joiningCode; /* SignWithLabel(., "GroupInfoRequestTBS", GroupInfoRequestTBS) */ opaque signature; }; } GroupInfoRequest; ]]> If successful, the response body contains the GroupInfo and a way to get the ratchet_tree, both encrypted with the groupInfoPublcKey passed in the request. ; ExternalSender hub_sender; opaque encrypted_groupinfo_and_tree; }; } GroupInfoResponseTBS; struct { Protocol version; GroupInfoCode status; select (protocol) { case mls10: CipherSuite cipher_suite; opaque room_id; ExternalSender hub_sender; opaque encrypted_groupinfo_and_tree; /* SignWithLabel(., "GroupInfoResponseTBS", GroupInfoResponseTBS) */ opaque signature; }; } GroupInfoResponse; ]]> The semantics of the GroupInfoCode are as follows:

• success indicates that GroupInfo and ratchet tree was provided as requested.
• notAuthorized indicates that the requester was not authorized to access the GroupInfo.
• noSuchRoom indicates that the requested room does not exist. If the hub does not want to reveal if a room ID does not exist it can use notAuthorized instead.

• TODO: Consider adding additional failure codes/semantics for joining codes (ex: code expired, already used, invalid)

ISSUE: What security properties are needed to protect a GroupInfo object in the MIMI context are still under discussion. It is possible that the requester only needs to prove possession of their private key. The GroupInfo in another context might be sufficiently sensitive that it should be encrypted from the end client to the hub provider (unreadable by the local provider).

Convey explicit consent As discussed in , there are many ways that a provider could implicitly determine consent. This section describes a mechanism by which providers can explicitly request consent from a user of another provider, cancel such a request, convey that consent was granted, or convey that consent was revoked or preemptively denied. Since they are not necessarily in the context of a room, consent requests are sent directly from the provider of the user requesting consent, to the provider of the target user. (There is no concept of a hub outside of the context of a room.) A requestConsent request is used by one provider to request explicit consent from a target user at another provider to fetch the target's KeyPackages (which is a prerequisite for adding the target to a group); or to cancel that request. The request body is a ConsentEntry, with a consentOperation of request or cancel respectively. It includes the URI of requesting user in the requesterUri and the target user URI in the targetUri. If consent is only requested for a single room, the requester includes the roomId. The combination of the requesterUri, targetUri, and optional roomId represents the ConsentScope. A cancel MUST use the same ConsentScope as a previous request. For a requestContent, the targetUri needs to be in one of the domains of the receiving provider, and the requesterUri needs to be in one of the domains of the sending provider. The response to a requestConsent request is usually a 201 Accepted (indicating the requestConsent was received), optionally a 404 Not Found (indicating the targetUri is unknown), or a 500-class response. The 201 response code merely indicates that the request was received. A provider that does not wish to reveal if a user is not found can respond with a 201 Accepted. Likewise in response to a cancel which has no request matching the ConsentScope, a 201 Accepted is sent and no further action is taken. roomId; select (consentOperation) { case grant: KeyPackage clientKeyPackages; }; } ConsentEntry; struct { IdentifierUri requesterUri; IdentifierUri targetUri; optional roomId; } ConsentScope; ]]> An updateConsent request is used by one provider to provide explicit notice from a target user at one provider that consent for a specific "requester" was granted, revoked, or preemptively denied. In this context, the requester is the party that will later request KeyPackages for the target. The request body is a ConsentEntry, with a consentOperation of grant (for a grant), or revoke for revocation or denial. Like a request, it includes the URI of the "requesting user" in the requesterUri and the target user URI in the targetUri. If consent is only granted or denied for a single room, the request includes the optional roomId. A grant or revoke does not need to be in response to an explicit request, nor does the ConsentScope need to match a previous request for the same targetUri and requesterUri pair. For example, in some systems there is a notion of a bilateral connection request. The party that initiates the connection request (for example Alice) would send a requestConsent for the target (ex: Bob), and send an unsolicited updateConsent with Bob as the "requestor" and itself (Alice) as the target. In a grant, the sender includes a list of clientKeyPackages for the target user, which can be empty. For the case of a bilateral connection, a grant of consent with a matching ConsentScope often results in an immediate Add to a group. If the list is non-empty this reduces the number of messages which need to be sent. For updateConsent the requesterUri needs to be in one of the domains of the receiving provider, and the targetUri needs to be in one of the domains of the sending provider. The response to an updateConsent is usually a 201 Accepted (indicating the updateConsent was received), optionally a 404 Not Found (indicating the requesterUri is unknown), or a 500-class response. The response code merely indicates that the request was received. A provider that does not wish to reveal if a user is not found can respond with a 201 Accepted.

• NOTE: Revoking consent for a user might be privacy sensitive. If this is the case the target provider does not need to send a revoke to inform the requester provider.

Find internal address The identifier query is to find the internal URI for a specific user on a specific provider. It is only sent from the local provider to the target provider (it does not transit a hub). Note that this POST request is idempotent and safe in the sense defined by . Consider three users Xavier, Yolanda, and Zach all with accounts on provider XYZ. Xavier is a sales person and wants to be contactable easily by potential clients on the XYZ provider. He configures his profile on XYZ so that searching for his first or last name or handle will find his profile and allow Alice to send him a consent request (it is out of scope how Alice verifies she has found the intended Xavier and not a different Xavier or an impostor). Yolanda has her XYZ handle on her business cards and the email signature she uses with clients. She configures her profile so that a query for her exact handle will find her profile and allow Alice to send her a consent request. Zach does not wish to be queryable at all. He has configured his account so even an exact handle search returns no results. He could still send a join link out-of-band to Alice for her to join a room of Zach's choosing. The request body is described as: ; /* a UTF8 string */ select(type) { case oidcStdClaim: opaque claimName; case vcardField: opaque fieldName; }; } IdentifierRequest; ]]> The response body is described as an IdentifierResponse. It can contain multiple matches depending on the type of query and the policy of the target provider. The response contains a code indicating the status of the query. success means that at least one result matched the query. notFound means that while the request was acceptable, no results matched the query. ambiguous means that a field (ex: handle) or combination of fields (ex: first and last name) need to match exactly for the provider to return any responses. forbidden means that use of this endpoint is not allowed by the provider or that an unspecified field or combination of fields is not allowed in an identifier query. unsupportedField means that the provider does not support queries on one of the fields queried. ; } ProfileField; struct { IdentifierUri stableUri; ProfileField fields; } UserProfile; struct { IdentifierQueryCode responseCode; IdentifierUri uri; UserProfile foundProfiles; } IdentifierResponse; ]]>

• TODO: The format of specific identifiers is discussed in . Any specific conventions which are needed should be merged into this document.

Report abuse Abuse reports are only sent to the hub provider. They are sent as an HTTP POST request. The reportingUser optionally contains the identity of the user sending the abuseReport, while the allegedAbuserUri contains the URI of the alleged sender of abusive messages. The reasonCode is reserved to identify the type of abuse, and the note is a UTF8 human-readable string, which can be empty.

• TODO: Find a standard taxonomy of reason codes to reference for the AbuseType. The IANA Messaging Abuse Report Format parameters are insufficient.

Finally, abuse reports can optionally contain a handful of allegedly AbusiveMessages, each of which contains an allegedly abusive message, its franks, and its timestamp. ; Frank frank; uint64 acceptedTimestamp; } AbusiveMessage; enum { reserved(0), (255) } AbuseType; struct { IdentifierUri reportingUser; IdentifierUri allegedAbuserUri; AbuseType reasonCode; opaque note; AbusiveMessage messages; } AbuseReport; ]]> There is no response body. The response code only indicates if the abuse report was accepted, not if any specific automated or human action was taken.

Relation between MIMI state and cryptographic state

Room state The state of a room consists of its room ID, its base policy, its participant list (including the role and participation state of each participant), and the associated end-to-end protocol state (its MLS group state) that anchors the room state cryptographically. While all parties involved in a room agree on the room's state during a specific epoch, the Hub is the arbiter that decides if a state change is valid, consistent with the room's then-current policy. All state-changing events are sent to the Hub and checked for their validity and policy conformance, before they are forwarded to any follower servers or local clients. As soon as the Hub accepts an event that changes the room state, its effect is applied to the room state and future events are validated in the context of that new state. The room state is thus changed based on events, even if the MLS proposal implementing the event was not yet committed by a client. Note that this only applies to events changing the room state.

Cryptographic room representation Each room is represented cryptographically by an MLS group. The Hub that manages the room also manages the list of group members, i.e. the list of clients belonging to users currently in the room.

Proposal-commit paradigm The MLS protocol follows a proposal-commit paradigm. Any party involved in a room (follower server, Hub or clients) can send proposals (e.g. to add/remove/update clients of a user or to re-initialize the group with different parameters). However, only clients can send commits, which contain all valid previously sent proposals and apply them to the MLS group state. The MIMI usage of MLS ensures that the Hub, all follower servers and the clients of all active participants agree on the group state, which includes the client list and the key material used for message encryption (although the latter is only available to clients). Since the group state also includes a copy of the room state at the time of the most recent commit, it is also covered by the agreement.

Authenticating proposals MLS requires that MLS proposals from the Hub and from follower servers (external senders in MLS terminology) be authenticated using key material contained in the external_senders extension of the MLS group. Each MLS group associated with a MIMI room MUST therefore contain an external_senders extension. That extension MUST contain at least the Certificate of the Hub. When a user from a follower server becomes a participant in the room, the Certificate of the follower server MAY be added to the extension. When the last participant belonging to a follower server leaves the room, the certificate of that user MUST be removed from the list. Changes to the external_senders extension only take effect when the MLS proposal containing the event is committed by a MIMI commit.

Consent Most instant messaging systems have some notion of how a user consents to be added to a room, and how they manipulate this consent. In the connection-oriented model, once two users are connected, either user can add the other to any number of rooms. In other systems (often with many large and/or public rooms), a user needs to consent individually to be added to a room. The MIMI consent mechanism supports both models and allows them to coexist. It allows a user to request consent, grant consent, revoke consent, and cancel a request for consent. Each of these consent operations can indicate a specific room, or indicate any room. A connection grant or revoke does not need to specify a room if a connection request did, or vice versa. A connection grant or revoke does not even need to follow a connection request. For example, Alice could ask for consent to add Bob to a specific room. Bob could send a connection grant for Alice to add him to any room, or a connection revoke preventing Alice from adding him to any room. Similarly, Alice might have sent a connection request to add Bob for any room (as a connection request), which Bob ignored or did not see. Later, Bob wants to join a specific room administered by Alice. Bob sends a connection grant for the specific room for Alice and sends a Knock request to Alice asking to be added. Finally, Cathy could send a connection grant for Bob (even if Bob did not initiate a connection request to Cathy), and Alice could recognize Cathy on the system and send a connection revoke for her preemptively.

• NOTE: Many providers use additional factors to apply default consent within their service such as a user belonging to a specific workgroup or employer, participating in a related room (ex: WhatsApp "communities"), or presence of a user in the other user's contact list. MIMI does not need to provide a way to replicate or describe these supplemental mechanisms, since they are strongly linked to specific provider policies.

Consent requests have sensitive privacy implications. The sender of a consent request should receive an acknowledgement that the request was received by the provider of the target user. For privacy reasons, the requestor should not know if the target user received or viewed the request. The original requestor will obviously find out if the target grants consent, but a consent revocation/rejection is typically not communicated to the revoked/rejected user (again for privacy reasons). Consent operations are only sent directly between the acting provider (sending the request, grant, revoke, or cancel) and the target provider (the object of the consent). In other words, the two providers must have a direct peering relationship. In our example, Alice requests consent from Bob for any room. Later, Bob sends a grants consent to Alice to add him to any room. At the same time as sending the consent request, Alice grants consent to Bob to add her to any room.

Security Considerations The MIMI protocol incorporates several layers of security. Individual protocol actions are protected against network attackers with mutually-authenticated TLS, where the TLS certificates authenticate the identities that the protocol actors assert at the application layer. Messages and room state changes are protected end-to-end using MLS. The protection is "end-to-end" in the sense that messages sent within the group are confidentiality-protected against all servers involved in the delivery of those messages, and in the sense that the authenticity of room state changes is verified by the end clients involved in the room. The usage of MLS ensures that the servers facilitating the exchange cannot read messages in the room or falsify room state changes, even though they can read the room state change messages. Each room has an authorization policy that dictates which protocol actors can perform which actions in the room. This policy is enforced by the hub server for the room. The actors for whom the policy is being evaluated authenticate their identities to the hub server using the MLS PublicMessage signed object format, together with the identity credentials presented in MLS. This design means that the hub is trusted to correctly enforce the room's policy, but this cost is offset by the simplicity of not having multiple policy enforcement points.

Franking TBD.

Example algorithm for generating franking keys To ensure a strong source of entropy for the franking_key included in each message, the client can export a secret from the MLS key schedule, for example with the label franking_base_secret and calculate the franking_key as the HMAC of a locally generated nonce and the franking_base_secret.

IANA Considerations

References Normative References Phoenix R&D Cisco The More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI) working group is defining a suite of protocols that allow messaging providers to interoperate with one another. This document lays out an overall architecture enumerating the MIMI protocols and how they work together to enable an overall messaging experience. Messaging applications are increasingly making use of end-to-end security mechanisms to ensure that messages are only accessible to the communicating endpoints, and not to any servers involved in delivering messages. Establishing keys to provide such protections is challenging for group chat settings, in which more than two clients need to agree on a key but may not be online at the same time. In this document, we specify a key establishment protocol that provides efficient asynchronous group key establishment with forward secrecy (FS) and post-compromise security (PCS) for groups in size ranging from two to thousands. In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery. This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless \%application- level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document defines the semantics of HTTP/1.1 messages, as expressed by request methods, request header fields, response status codes, and response header fields, along with the payload of messages (metadata and body content) and mechanisms for content negotiation. Cisco Rohan Mahy Consulting Services One feature that the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol provides is that it allows the members of a group to confirm that they agree on certain data. In this document, we define a mechanism for applications using MLS to exploit this feature of MLS to ensure that the group members are in agreement on the state of the application in addition to MLS-related state. We define a GroupContext extension that captures the state of the application and an AppSync proposal that can be used to update the application state. A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet. The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all valid URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every possible identifier. This specification does not define a generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual specifications of each URI scheme. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document describes the overall architecture of HTTP, establishes common terminology, and defines aspects of the protocol that are shared by all versions. In this definition are core protocol elements, extensibility mechanisms, and the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. This document updates RFC 3864 and obsoletes RFCs 2818, 7231, 7232, 7233, 7235, 7538, 7615, 7694, and portions of 7230. Many application technologies enable secure communication between two entities by means of Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) certificates in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application services in such interactions. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Phoenix R&D This document describes extensions to the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol. Discussion Venues This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/mlswg/mls-extensions. Rohan Mahy Consulting Services The Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol needs to share its ratchet_tree object to welcome new clients into a group and in external joins. While the protocol only defines a mechanism for sharing the entire tree, most implementations use various optimizations to avoid sending this structure repeatedly in large groups. This document describes a way to convey these improvements in a standardized way and to convey the parts of a GroupInfo object that are not visible to an intermediary server. Rohan Mahy Consulting Services This document defines a SemiPrivateMessage for the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol. It allows members to share otherwise private commits and proposals with a designated list of external receivers rather than send these handshakes in a PublicMessage. Informative References Facebook Cornell Tech Shanghai Jiao Tong University Cornell Tech New York University Cornell Tech Cornell Tech Royal Holloway, University of London Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) certificates are used for a number of purposes, the most significant of which is the authentication of domain names. Thus, certification authorities (CAs) in the Web PKI are trusted to verify that an applicant for a certificate legitimately represents the domain name(s) in the certificate. As of this writing, this verification is done through a collection of ad hoc mechanisms. This document describes a protocol that a CA and an applicant can use to automate the process of verification and certificate issuance. The protocol also provides facilities for other certificate management functions, such as certificate revocation. Wire This document discusses concepts in instant messaging identity interoperability when using end-to-end encryption, for example with the MLS (Message Layer Security) Protocol. The goal is to explore the problem space in preparation for framework and requirements documents.

Acknowledgments

• TODO: