itsgoin/docs/fof-spec/layer-6-revocation.md

Layer 6 — Revocation & Rotation Cascades

Status: Superseded by Layer 4 (2026-05-13). Layer 4 settled the revocation and cascade design: V_me rotation as the persona-wide revocation primitive, receiver-chain storage, grandfather-by-default with author-opt-in per-post cascades, and the optional KeyBurnDiff primitive for leaked-V_me scenarios. Nothing in Layer 6 below is load-bearing; this file is retained as a record of the alternatives that were considered before Layer 4 was written.

Original scope (now resolved by Layer 4): Mechanism for a persona to un-vouch a specific vouchee without rotating V_me (which affects everyone), and for cascading rotations when a down-chain vouchee is un-vouched.

---

The problem

In Layers 1–5, the only way to revoke a vouch is to rotate V_me and re-distribute to every remaining vouchee. This is:

• Coarse: rotates everyone to remove one.
• Expensive at scale: O(remaining_vouchees) DM sends.
• Traceable: observers can't see who, but a flurry of DMs hints at a change.
• Cascading: if Alice rotates her V_me, every FoFClosed post Alice authored that was open to "friends" was open under V_alice_old; new readers on the updated V_alice_new can't decrypt old posts. Post-level Layer 4 rotation fixes this only if the author re-wraps every post under the new set.

Layer 6 is where we explore whether any of these frictions is worth addressing, and at what cost.

---

Out of scope for v1

Without Layer 6, here's what breaks vs. what holds:

• Holds: FoF gating works. Revocation works (via coarse V_me rotation). Privacy properties intact.
• Breaks: surgical un-vouch. If Alice wants to remove Bob but keep Charlie, she must rotate V_alice, re-give to Charlie. If she has 50 vouchees, that's 49 re-grants. Probably tolerable for a social-graph change that's inherently rare. Sharp corner only at large vouchee fanout.

Lead leaning: v1 ships without Layer 6. Revocation is via coarse V_me rotation. Revisit after usage data shows whether surgical revocation is load-bearing.

---

Candidate designs (if we do Layer 6 later)

Candidate A: Revocation List signed by voucher

Voucher publishes (revoked_vouchee_id, since_epoch). Readers exclude posts whose vouch_mac identifies a chain through a revoked vouchee.

Drawbacks:

• Requires vouch_mac to be public (not just for author strict mode).
• Publishes the social graph — the thing we worked to keep private.
• Non-starter without Zero-Knowledge proofs.

Candidate B: Per-vouchee key derivation

Instead of one V_me, derive a per-vouchee key V_me_bob = HKDF(V_me_master, bob_id). To revoke Bob, rotate V_me_master (affects everyone again — same problem).

Alternative: author re-wraps posts under V_me_current \ {V_me_bob}. This is per-post rotation (Layer 4) with deliberate exclusion. Feasible but requires the author to know which slot was Bob's — which breaks anonymous wrap slots.

Candidate C: Forward-secrecy ratchet

V_me ratchets forward on a cadence. Old vouchees retain access to content encrypted before revocation; lose access to new. Avoids explicit revocation. Close to Signal's group ratchet.

Complexity is significant. Would require a per-persona state machine, out-of-band sync of current epoch between persona's devices, etc.

Candidate D: Accept the coarse rotation

Acknowledge V_me rotation IS the revocation primitive. Smooth the UX:

• UI: "Remove Bob from your Friends" → warns "This will re-distribute your Friends key to your other 49 Friends."
• Background rotation task handles the N DMs.
• Existing FoFClosed posts don't auto-re-wrap (remain under old V_alice). Author can opt to re-wrap specific posts via Layer 4.

Lead leaning: Candidate D. The "problem" is mostly UX friction, addressable with good affordances.

---

Open design questions (deferred)

• Is there user demand for surgical revocation that doesn't rotate everyone?
• What's the actual fanout distribution? If p95 vouchee count is <20, coarse rotation is a ~20-DM operation — tolerable.
• Does Candidate D's UX feel heavy enough that users avoid revoking at all? (Anti-pattern: graph accumulates stale vouches.)
• For Mode 2 (public posts with FoF comments), revocation has different urgency — author cares about who can still COMMENT, not about access to past content. Is surgical comment-only revocation simpler? (Hint: Layer 4 rotation on a specific post already does this coarsely — rotate priv_post, re-wrap under the narrowed set.)

---

What Layer 6 should deliver IF we build it

Not decided. Placeholder:

• A defined revocation primitive (candidate selected).
• Cascading / not-cascading behavior specified.
• UI surface consistent with Layers 1–5.
• Does NOT introduce per-vouchee public identifiers in any wire format.

---

Decision point

Revisit after Layers 1–5 ship and 30 days of production usage. Signals that would move Layer 6 into scope:

• p95 vouchee count > 50 (coarse rotation cost meaningfully high).
• User reports of "I want to remove X but not everyone."
• Privacy audit finding that the DM-flurry of coarse rotation leaks social-graph change timing.

Absent those, Layer 6 stays deferred.