Re: [Cfrg] RG Last Call - draft-irtf-cfrg-ocb-00

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF3521F84D1 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 22:17:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.162
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJcH9Bn+kYs6 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 22:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D83821F846E for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 22:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.150]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r166HAYn004844; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:17:10 +0200
X-CheckPoint: {5111F1B2-0-1B221DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.18]) by DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.103]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:17:10 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Ted Krovetz <ted@krovetz.net>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] RG Last Call - draft-irtf-cfrg-ocb-00
Thread-Index: Ac4Dspy9Udf6dIL6TC+F69Worz8/1QAHGMOAAAO0wgAAAO63AAAJKb4AAAaoP4A=
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 06:17:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC30277211199CFD4@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com>
References: <CD36F024.E947%uri@ll.mit.edu> <803CC67D-E708-41D4-9865-5C42FF1D626F@krovetz.net>
In-Reply-To: <803CC67D-E708-41D4-9865-5C42FF1D626F@krovetz.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.21.128]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <14401EDAC7C58E44A9362B50D952ACE9@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RG Last Call - draft-irtf-cfrg-ocb-00
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:17:13 -0000

On Feb 6, 2013, at 5:06 AM, Ted Krovetz <ted@krovetz.net> wrote:

> 
>> Going to Phil's page gives the following. What is the relation between
>> "License 1" and "License 2"?
> 
> People pick whichever they want. If a product is open source, they'll likely prefer License 1. If the product is closed they'll likely prefer License 2.

How can it be used in a "product" if even license 2 is for non-commercial use? Also, why is "military use" specifically directed at the US military rather than any other military in the world?

Thanks

Yoav