Re: [Cfrg] draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt (Peter Gutmann) Fri, 16 August 2002 04:11 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25864 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:11:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id AAA28653 for; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA28630; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:12:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA28600 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:12:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25852 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:10:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g7G4BS8W001869; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:11:28 +1200
Received: (from pgut001@localhost) by (8.9.3/8.8.6/cs-slave) id QAA18674; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:11:28 +1200 (NZST) (sender
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:11:28 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <>
From: (Peter Gutmann)
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>

"Housley, Russ" <> writes:

>IEEE 802.11 has chosen to make CCM the mandatory to implement AES mode for
>wireless LAN encryption. IEEE 802.15 has also chosen CCM for use with
>personal area networks.  In my opinion, this success is due to the lack of
>a patent (or pending patent from the authors) on CCM.  I suspect that most
>of the members of this list are aware that other candidate authenticated
>encryption modes are encumbered.

Is there a chance that it'd be covered by some other patent?  Having 
recently looked at DH+password mechanisms, I'm wary of algorithms in 
fields where multiple overlapping patents already exist.

>It is my intention to publish draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt as an
>Informational RFC.  This looks like the appropriate group to review the

If it's truly unencumbered, I'd like to see this as standards-track.  I've
been working on an single-pass encrypt+MAC process draft for CMS for use 
in areas like EDI, but a combined mode of operation would be much nicer.


Cfrg mailing list