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

Joachim Strömbergson <> Fri, 15 February 2013 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D0921F861F for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.463
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.547, BAYES_05=-1.11, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2BP-LhEenjDY for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5F321F8610 for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:39427 helo=tunnis.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1U6GEM-003qn6-Su for; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:01:14 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:01:19 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9hY2hpbSBTdHLDtm1iZXJnc29u?= <>
Organization: Kryptologik
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1302122323110.82652@rogaway-toshiba>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1302122323110.82652@rogaway-toshiba>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RG Last Call - draft-irtf-cfrg-ocb-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:01:18 -0000


On 2013-02-13 08:27 , Phillip Rogaway wrote:
> Someone else on this list asked: why open-source SW but not open-source
> HW. The answer is that I know nothing about the latter domain. If
> needed, please make a specific request (by private email) and I’ll try
> to make sure you’re covered.

Since I was the one asking about this: Why do you feel that you need to 
make the distinction, thereby infering a limitation? Esp if you don't 
know anything about the domain? (Fear of the unknown? ;-)

If you look at OpenCores for example you will find quite a lot of 
implementations of different cryptographic algoritms licensed under 
(L)GPL- and BSD-licenses

OCB is IMHO very interesting for embedded systems, systems that often 
are implemented using FPGAs with soft microcontroller cores augumented 
with application specific cores for things like I/O, crypto etc. Being 
able to offload the mode processing would free the MCU to handle events 
or be less expensive. The latter being the driving force in embedded space.

Med vänlig hälsning, Yours

Joachim Strömbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svängning.