Re: [Cfrg] draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt

"Housley, Russ" <> Fri, 16 August 2002 13:49 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15515 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA02208 for; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:50:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA02080; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA02057 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:44:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA15300 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by via smtpd (for []) with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 13:44:49 UT
Received: from ( []) by (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13634 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:44:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g7GDg7W27238 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:42:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3TPV2324>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:44:17 -0400
Received: from (HOUSLEY-LAP []) by with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 3TPV232Q; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:44:10 -0400
From: "Housley, Russ" <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:39:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>


> >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.

The authors are unaware of any issued patents that cover CCM.  None of the 
authors have filed patents that cover CCM.  Non of the authors are aware of 
any filed, but not yet issued, patents that cover CCM.

> >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
> >document.
>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.

Generally, the algorithm specification is published as in Informational 
RFC, then standards-track RFCs reference the Informational RFC.  In this 
way, the algorithm becomes mandatory to implement.


Cfrg mailing list