Skip to main content

An Architecture for More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI)
draft-ietf-mimi-arch-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mimi WG)
Author Richard Barnes
Last updated 2024-11-21
Replaces draft-barnes-mimi-arch
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-mimi-arch-01
More Instant Messaging Interoperability                     R. L. Barnes
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Informational                          21 November 2024
Expires: 25 May 2025

   An Architecture for More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI)
                        draft-ietf-mimi-arch-01

Abstract

   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.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mimi-arch/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the More Instant Messaging
   Interoperability Working Group mailing list (mailto:mimi@ietf.org),
   which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mimi/.
   Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mimi/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/bifurcation/mimi-arch.

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 25 May 2025.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overall Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Room State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  End-to-End Security State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Participants and Members  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Membership Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Protocol Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  End-to-End Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Events and Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.3.  Room State Synchronization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.4.  Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Actors, Identifiers, and Authentication . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   Today, there are many providers of messaging functionality.  A
   provider typically provides the client software (e.g., a mobile app)
   and the servers that facilitate communications among clients.  The
   core function of MIMI is enabling users to have messaging
   interactions across message providers.

   This overall goal breaks down into several sub-goals:

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   *  Message formats that enable the user-level features of a messaging
      system

   *  Tracking of state across multiple providers

   *  End-to-end security of user messages

   *  Transport of protocol messages among providers

   In this document, we describe the high-level functions of these
   protocols, and how they work toegether to enable an overall messaging
   application.

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.

   The following terms are used by this document and the MIMI working
   group for a shared understanding of the overall system:

   _Messaging Provider_ or _Provider_: A service offering instant
   messaging to users.  Each provider has a logical server to route
   events between users (or clients, more specifically).

   _User_: A (normally) human operator of a client.  Users have a
   distinct _User ID_ to canonically identify them.

   _Client_: A user interface for messaging, performing encryption as
   needed.  Presents chats to the user to interact with.  Synonymous
   with _MLS Client_. Clients have a _Client ID_ to canonically
   represent them among the user's other clients.  Clients MAY also be
   called _Devices_ to differentiate them from a named application.

   _Server_: A logical location operated by a messaging provider which
   ensures message and information delivery.  A server may be realized
   by multiple physical computers.  Users have accounts on a specific
   server.  Servers are considered to be "participating" in a room if
   they have at least one joined user participant.

   _Hub_: The specific server in a room with operational responsibility
   for delivery between all servers in the room.  This includes messages
   and, where applicable, information about the room or underlying
   cryptographic state.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   _Follower_: All non-hub servers in a room.  Followers are required to
   interact with the hub server to send messages, and are responsible
   for "last mile" delivery of a message to its local users.

   _Room_: The virtual space where users communicate.  This is
   semantically different from an _MLS Group_: an MLS Group is
   responsible for handling client keys while a room is simply the user-
   facing construct for communications.  Rooms have a cryptographic
   state component as well.  MLS uses a Group to represent that state.
   Rooms have a _Room ID_ to canonically identify them.  Rooms may
   additionally be called _Chats_, _Conversations_, or _Channels_.

   _State_: The room's user participation information, cryptographic
   state, and other metadata as required, collectively.

   _User Participation_: The set of users which can engage in
   conversation within a given room, or could engage if they complete
   further actions.  For example, users may be "invited" to converse,
   and can accept (join) or reject (leave).  Users are not considered to
   have "membership".  Instead, users are _participants_ in the room.  A
   list of these users is called the _Participant List_.

   _Client Membership_: The set of clients belonging to participating
   users within a given room's cryptographic state.  Clients are not
   considered to have "participation".  Instead, clients are _members_
   of the room.  A list of these clients is called the _Membership_ for
   a room.

   _Active Participant_: A participating user with at least one client
   member in the room's cryptographic state.

   _Inactive Participant_: A participating user with zero client members
   in the room's cryptographic state.  Users in this state may be unable
   to decrypt messages sent while no clients are members.

   _Add_ (Operation): Places a client or user into a joined state, able
   to converse with other clients/users also in the joined state.  When
   adding a user, all of their clients are implicitly added as well.

   _Remove_ (Operation): Kicks a client or user from a room, preventing
   further conversation being received from that entity, and preventing
   that entity from seeing future conversation.  When a user is removed,
   all of their clients are explicitly removed as well.  Removal may be
   voluntary or non-voluntary.

   _Policy_: The authorization structure within a room.  Policy governs
   whether an action is possible, such as whether User A can add User B
   to the room.  Policies are changed over time by users and servers.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   _Policy Envelope_: Set by the hub server during room creation, the
   set of policies which can be changed in the room.

   _Event_: A structure used by servers to relay changes to the room and
   messages from clients.

   _State Event_: An event which mutates the _state_ of the room.  These
   may partially be visible to the servers of the room for
   authentication and authorization.

   _Message Event_: An event containing a message from a client.
   Contents are not visible to servers in the room.

3.  Overall Scope

   Figure 1 shows the critical entities in the overall MIMI system and
   their interactions.  Each human _user_ is represented in the system
   by one or more _clients_, where each client is a specific software or
   hardware system belonging to a single user.  Each provider is
   represented by a _server_ (logically a single server, but possibly
   realized by multiple physical devices).

   Messaging interactions are organized around _rooms_.  All messaging
   interactions take place in the context of a room.  (Some non-
   messaging interactions may take place outside of a room, such as
   operations to fetch information required to set up a room.)  Rooms
   have a notion of _user participation_ as well as _client membership_,
   both tracked as lists.  Rooms additionally have policies about things
   like how the room may be joined and what capabilities each member/
   participant has.

   The protocol interactions that drive a room unfold among the servers
   whose users are participants in the room.  There is exactly one _hub_
   server for the room, which is in primary control of the room.  All
   other servers are known as _followers_. Follower servers interact
   directly with the hub server.  Interactions between clients occur
   indirectly, via the servers for the clients' providers.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

     Users            Provider X                Room 123
                    .--------------------.    .----------------.
    .-----.        | +----------+         |  |                  |
   | Alice +---------+ Client A +--+      |  |                  |
    '-----'        | +----------+  |  +------------+            |
                   |               +--+  Server 1  | (Follower) |
    .---.          | +----------+  |  +----------+-+            |
   | Bob +-----------+ Client B +--+      |  |   |              |
    '---'          | +----------+         |  |   |              |
                    '--------------------'   |   |              |
                                             |   |              |
                      Provider Y             |   |              |
                    .--------------------.   |   |              |
                   | +----------+         |  |   |              |
                +----+ Client C +--+      |  |   |              |
    .-------.   |  | +----------+  |  +----------+-+            |
   | Charlie +--+  |               +--+  Server 2  | (Hub)      |
    '-------'   |  | +----------+  |  +----------+-+            |
                +----+ Client D +--+      |  |   |              |
                   | +----------+         |  |   |              |
                    '--------------------'   |   |              |
                                             |   |              |
                      Provider Z             |   |              |
                    .--------------------.   |   |              |
    .-----.        | +----------+         |  |   |              |
   | Diana +---------+ Client E +--+      |  |   |              |
    '-----'        | +----------+  |  +----------+-+            |
                   |               +--+  Server 3  | (Follower) |
    .------.       | +----------+  |  +------------+            |
   | Evelyn +--------+ Client F +--+      |  |                  |
    '------'       | +----------+         |  |                  |
                    '--------------------'    '----------------'

                  Figure 1: MIMI Entities and Interactions

4.  Room State

   A room represnts a messaging interaction among a specific set of
   clients, with a single _state_.  A major goal of the MIMI protocols
   is to syncrhonize the state of a room across all of the servers and
   clients participating in the room.  Changes to the room's state can
   be proposed by either clients or servers, though as dicussed in
   Section 4.4, one important aspect of the room's state is an
   authorization policy that determines which actors are allowed to make
   which changes.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   The creation of a room is a local operation on the hub server, and
   thus outside the scope of MIMI.  The hub server establishes the
   initial state of the room.

   The state of the room includes a few types of information, most
   importantly:

   *  The end-to-end security state of the room

   *  The user-level participation state of the room

   *  The authorization policy for the room

   +------------------+   +-----------------------+   +---------------+
   |                  |   |                       |   |               |
   |  Authorization   |   |    Participant List   |   | E2E Security  |
   |      Policy      |   |                       |   |     State     |
   |                  |   |                       |   |               |
   |  .------------.  |   |  .-----------------.  |   |  .---------.  |
   | | User 1 Capas +-------+  User 1 (active)  +-------+ Client 1a | |
   |  '------------'  |   |  '-----------------'  |   |  '---------'  |
   |                  |   |                       |   |               |
   |  .------------.  |   |  .-----------------.  |   |  .---------.  |
   | | User 2 Capas +-------+  User 2 (active)  +---+---+ Client 2a | |
   |  '------------'  |   |  '-----------------'  | | |  '---------'  |
   |                  |   |                       | | |               |
   |                  |   |                       | | |  .---------.  |
   |                  |   |                       | +---+ Client 2b | |
   |                  |   |                       |   |  '---------'  |
   |                  |   |                       |   |               |
   |  .------------.  |   |  .-----------------.  |   |               |
   | | User 3 Capas +-------+ User 3 (inactive) | |   |               |
   |  '------------'  |   |  '-----------------'  |   |               |
   |                  |   |                       |   |               |
   +------------------+   +-----------------------+   +---------------+

                    Figure 2: Elements of the Room State

4.1.  End-to-End Security State

   Messages sent within a room are protected by an end-to-end security
   protocol to ensure that the servers handling messages cannot inspect
   or tamper with messages.  This means that the required cryptographic
   keys need to be provisioned to any client from which a user can
   interact with the room.  The state of this end-to-end security
   protocol thus represents the precise set of clients that can send and
   receive messages in the room, the most precise notion of membership
   for a room.  A client that has the required keys for end-to-end

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   security is said to be a member of the end-to-end security state of
   the room.

   The end-to-end security state of a room has public and private
   aspects.  Servers may store the public aspects of the end-to-end
   security state, such as identities and credentials presented by the
   clients in the room.  The private aspects of the group, such as the
   symmetric encryption keys, are known only to the clients.

4.2.  Participants and Members

   The _participant list_ for a room is the set of users who are allowed
   to interact with the room in some way.  The specific list of ways in
   which a user may participate is defined by authorization policy, as
   discussed in Section 4.4.

   Note the parallel terminology with regard to inclusion of clients or
   users in the room:

   *  A _client_ is a _member_ of the _end-to-end security state_ of the
      room

   *  A _user_ is a _participant_ in the room

   The user-level _participant list_ and the client-level _membership_
   of the room are distinct entities managed by separate protocols, but
   they must be consistent with each other.  A client may be a member of
   the E2EE state of a room only if its user is a participant in the
   room.  However, a user may be a participant in a room without any
   client belonging to the user being part of the end-to-end security
   state of the room.  (Such a user will not be able to read or send
   messages, but may be able to take other actions.  It is up to client
   implementations how this state is represented.)

   A user with at least one client joined to the end-to-end security
   state of the room is known as an _active user_, since such a user can
   fully participate in the room.

4.3.  Membership Changes

   The participant list and client membership of a group can change over
   time, via _add_ and _remove_ operations at both the user level and
   the client level.  These operations are independent at the protocol
   level: For example, a user may be added to a room before any of its
   clients are available to join, or a user may begin using a new device
   (adding the device without changing the user-level participation).

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   As discussed above, user-level participation and client-level
   membership must be kept in sync.  When a user is added, some set of
   their clients should be added as well; when a user leaves or is
   evicted, any clients joined to the room should be removed.  The
   cryptographic constraints of end-to-end security protocols mean that
   servers cannot perform this synchronization; it is up to clients to
   keep these two types of state in sync.

4.4.  Policy

   Each room has an associated _policy_ that governs which protocol
   actions are authorized for the room while the policy is in effect.
   The policy defines several aspects of the room's behavior, for
   example:

   *  Admission policy: Do new members need to be explicitly added by a
      current member of the room, or can some set of users join
      unilaterally?

   *  Capabilities per user: Is a given user allowed to ...

      -  Send messages in the room?

      -  Add or remove other users?

      -  Grant or deny capabilities to other users?

   *  Capabilities per server: Is a given server participating in the
      room allowed to...

      -  Add or remove users?

      -  Grant or deny capabilities to users?

   The hub server for a room defines the _policy envelope_ for the room,
   the set of acceptable policies for the room.  The hub also sets the
   initial policy for the room when it is created.  Pursuant to that
   initial policy, the clients and servers participating in the room may
   then make further changes to the policy.

   At any given time, all of the clients and servers have the same view
   of the room's policy.  A client or server that receives an event that
   is not compliant with the room's policy may thus safely discard it,
   since all of the other participating clients/servers should also
   reject the event.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

5.  Protocol Interactions

   As shown in Figure 3, MIMI protocols define server-to-server
   interactions and client-to-client interactions.  Each client
   interacts with the overall system by means of its provider's server
   (whether hub or follower).  Client-to-client interactions are done by
   means of these servers.

   The messages sent within a room are forwarded among participating
   clients by servers.  However, messages are protected by an end-to-end
   security protocol so that their content is only accessible to the
   clients participating in the room.

   In addition to forwarding messages, servers participate in control
   protocols that coordinate the state of the room across the
   participating providers.  Both message forwarding and control
   protocols leverage a common framework for sharing _events_ among
   servers.  Events are protected with the same end-to-end security
   protocol as clients' messages, so that the actors updating a room are
   authenticated and the clients participating in a room can confirm
   that they agree on the state of the room.

   Note that some parts of the overall system are explicitly out of
   scope for MIMI.  Namely, client-server interactions internal to a
   provider (indicated by "(Provider)" in Figure 3) can be arranged
   however the provider likes.

   The MIMI protocol implemented by servers thus incorporates a few sub-
   protocols:

   *  A transport protocol for sending room events among servers

   *  A state synchronization protocol for coordinating updates to the
      room state

   *  A message forwarding protocol

   A common end-to-end security layer provide common security services
   to all of these functions.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

          Provider             Provider             Provider
             |                    |                    |
    .-------' '--------.   .-----' '------.   .-------' '--------.
   |                    | |                | |                    |
   Client        Follower        Hub         Follower        Client
     |              |             |             |              |
     |              |             |             |              |
     |              |         Messaging         |              |
     |<=======================================================>|
     |              |             |             |              |
     |              |             |             |              |
     |  (Provider)  |          Control          |  (Provider)  |
     |<~~~~~~~~~~~~>|<------------------------->|<~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
     |              |             |             |              |
     |              |             |             |              |
     |              |  Transport  |  Transport  |              |
     |              |<----------->|<----------->|              |
     |              |             |             |              |

                          Figure 3: MIMI Protocols

5.1.  End-to-End Security

   As noted above, all of the clients participating in a room are part
   of the same end-to-end security context.  This allows them to protect
   their messages so that they are secure from inspection or tampering
   as they transit MIMI servers.

   In addition to the message protection noted above, the end-to-end
   security layer of the protocol provides a few additional functions to
   the remainder of the protocol:

   *  Authentication of the actors making changes to a room

   *  Confirmation that the clients in a room agree on the state of the
      room

   The authentication function allows MIMI servers to verify the
   identity of a client making a change to the room, as an input to a
   policy evaluation to check whether the change is authorized.  MIMI
   servers can make changes to a room, within the bounds of the room's
   authorization policy.  Thus, MIMI servers also need to be represented
   in the end-to-end security state of the room, but as actors who can
   only authenticate, and are not given access to confidential end-to-
   end security state.  In MLS terms, they are added as external
   senders, not as members of the group.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   The MIMI protocol includes end-to-end security components to keep the
   end-to-end security state of the room aligned with the room's
   participant list, and to ensure that all clients participating in the
   room have the proper configuration (e.g., trusting the appropriate
   set of servers).

5.2.  Events and Transport

   A room's activities are realized by servers exchanging _events_.
   Events come in two types:

   *  *State events*, which make changes to the room state

   *  *Message events*, which describe actual messaging activity in the
      room

   Each event originates at one of the servers participating in the room
   (possibly as a result of some interaction with a client).  The
   originating server sends the event to the hub server for the room,
   who distributes it to the other follower servers.

   Each event is authenticated by its originating server so that all
   other participating servers can verify its origin, even those to whom
   the event has been distributed by the hub.  If an event was
   ultimately created by a client, it is also authenticated by the
   client that created it.

   The overall MIMI protocol defines this event framework, including its
   authentication scheme, as well as the mechanics of how events are
   delivered from one server to another.

5.3.  Room State Synchronization

   The servers involved in a room use an application state
   synchronization protocol to coordinate changes to a room's state,
   particularly those listed in Section 4.  A few types of room state
   are synchronized, in what can be viewed as independent control sub-
   protocols:

   A *policy control protocol* distributes information about the policy
   envelope of a room, and allows participants in a room to propose
   changes to the policy within that envelope.

   A *participation control protocol* manages the user-level membership
   of the room, including the various ways that members might join or
   leave a room (or be added/removed by other users).

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   As discussed above, the *end-to-end security control protocol*
   manages the end-to-end security state of the room.  This protocol
   also allows servers to distribute cryptographic information that
   clients have pre-registered, which allows clients to be
   asynchronously added to rooms.

5.4.  Messages

   Mesage events are end-to-end secure objects that carry application
   messages, often in the standard MIMI content format.  The end-to-end
   encapsuation ensures that the message content is only accessible to
   the clients participating in the room, not the servers that help to
   distribute it.

   The MIMI message format [I-D.ietf-mimi-content] defines how clients
   achieve the various features of a messaging application, for example:

   *  Text messaging

   *  File attachements

   *  Replies

   *  Reactions

   *  Initiation of real-time sessions

   Messages transit MIMI servers by means of a *message forwarding
   protocol*, which carries an opaque, encrypted message payload
   together with enough metadata to facilitate delivery to the clients
   participating in a room.

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

     Users            Provider X                Room 123
                    .--------------------.    .----------------.
                   |                      |  |                  |
    .-----.        | +----------+     +------------+            |
   | Alice +-------->+ Client A +---->+  Server 1  | (Follower) |
    '-----'        | +----------+     +----------+-+            |
                   |                      |  |   |              |
                    '--------------------'   |   |              |
                                             |   |              |
                      Provider Y             |   |              |
                    .--------------------.   |   |              |
                   |                      |  |   V              |
    .---.          | +----------+     +----------+-+            |
   | Bob +<----------+ Client B +<----+  Server 2  | (Hub)      |
    '---'          | +----------+     +----------+-+            |
                   |                      |  |   |              |
                    '--------------------'   |   |              |
                                             |   |              |
                      Provider Z             |   |              |
                    .--------------------.   |   |              |
                   |                      |  |   V              |
    .-------.      | +----------+     +----------+-+            |
   | Charlie +<------+ Client C +<----+  Server 3  | (Follower) |
    '-------'      | +----------+     +------------+            |
                   |                      |  |                  |
                    '--------------------'    '----------------'

       Figure 4: The hub fans out messages to participating servers;
                servers deliver messages to users' clients.

   When a client sends a message, the message is delivered to its
   provider's server using some provider-internal mechanism.  If the
   provider is not the hub, then the server forwards the message to the
   hub for delivery.  In either case, the hub distributes the message to
   all of the servers participating in the room.  Each provider's server
   then forwards the message to clients of users who are participating
   in the room.

6.  Actors, Identifiers, and Authentication

   There are several types of entity to be identified in the MIMI
   system, including:

   *  Rooms,

   *  Servers,

   *  Users, and

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

   *  Clients.

   A server's identity is effectively the identity of the provider it
   represents.  A room is hosted by a single hub server at a given time,
   so its identity is within the scope of the hub server's identity.

   To facilitate the application of policies based on these identifiers
   to protocol actions, each actor presents one or more credentials that
   associate a signature key pair to their identifiers.  Protocol
   messages are then signed by their senders to authenticate the origin
   of the message.

   For a deeper discussion of identity, see [I-D.mahy-mimi-identity].

7.  Security Considerations

   TODO

   *  Authorization policy attached to a room

   *  E2E security for messages provided by message delivery protocol

   *  E2E/E2M/M2E/M2M security for events provided by transport protocol

   *  HbH security provided by TLS

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mimi-content]
              Mahy, R., "More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI)
              message content", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft              MIMI Architecture              November 2024

              ietf-mimi-content-04, 10 June 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mimi-
              content-04>.

   [I-D.mahy-mimi-identity]
              Mahy, R., "More Instant Messaging Interoperability (MIMI)
              Identity Concepts", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-mahy-mimi-identity-02, 10 July 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mahy-mimi-
              identity-02>.

Acknowledgments

   TODO acknowledge.

Author's Address

   Richard L. Barnes
   Cisco
   Email: rlb@ipv.sx

Barnes                     Expires 25 May 2025                 [Page 16]