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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 06 February 2013 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 A556921F856F for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:13:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.347, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 KTy+isTRUtau for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A61321F8633 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:13:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C646BE20; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:13:16 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYMhKY+Hs6MF; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:13:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:80c7:bcd9:5c92:51d8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:80c7:bcd9:5c92:51d8]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEE17BE47; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:13:13 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <51128F2A.5080805@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:13:14 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
References: <CD37EC68.E9B9%uri@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CD37EC68.E9B9%uri@ll.mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Greg Rose <ggr@seer-grog.net>, "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 17:13:38 -0000

On 02/06/2013 04:24 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL wrote:
> This licensing makes me leery to accept this AEAD mode for standardization

This isn't being proposed as a standard, but as an informational
IRTF-track RFC. Those aren't the same thing, even though there
are a bunch of people who regard them as being the same.

S.

PS: The header should also be fixed up to say IRTF and not
IETF, see, e.g. [1] for what it ought look like. That'd get
fixed later anyway, but no harm doing it now.


[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bpq