Re: [Cfrg] Request For Comments: OCB Internet-Draft

David McGrew <> Wed, 03 August 2011 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5EB21F8B2D for <>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.715
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1sZWZb4tdvN5 for <>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C7A21F8B2A for <>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1562; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312375894; x=1313585494; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references; bh=ORYBkftKFRC2XKqR4b59+EX3vC11zXgvkZeYgxOoLxQ=; b=fQHUxon7vDlN7n5NtUoDYXPbYDkMUjfZbmXBiFKmLiGPQV0z2IMgQXpc osNDpOiKrF4bB7mZFm9Qrt8d9Hz2MBg9osb3A26SawudqSX4B9aUAHcaE gMnSPf2/W8CKKTcvkaUdiWnUbpBRHB+D9v3dswlrMwF8KJXqVIm7NltM6 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,310,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="9213822"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2011 12:51:33 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p73CpWdj004923; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:51:33 GMT
Message-Id: <>
From: David McGrew <>
To: Ted Krovetz <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:51:31 -0700
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Request For Comments: OCB Internet-Draft
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:51:23 -0000

Hi Ted,

On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Ted Krovetz wrote:

> There are several patents that may apply to OCB. We are in the  
> process of trying to get all parties to pool their patents and  
> liberalize their use.

I saw that Phil sent in IPR terms on OCB, at 
    Thanks to you and Phil for taking care of this.

Unfortunately, this doesn't settle all of the open issues, because all  
of the patents that are mentioned in that IPR disclosure are held by  
Phil.  Are you aware of plans to post disclosures regarding the IPR of  
the other parties that you mention (I would assume that is Gligor and  
Donescu, and IBM, who are mentioned on Phil's OCB FAQ page)?

I would certainly understand if Phil didn't want to make an IPR  
statement on behalf of another holder of potentially essential IPR.  I  
think the right thing to do would be to point out the draft and the  
IETF IPR process to the other parties, and let them make whatever  
statements they think are suitable.  If you don't feel comfortable  
doing this, I offer to do it on your behalf.

As CFRG chair, it is my responsibility to make sure that all of the  
relevant IPR gets disclosed.  (The IETF goal is to have all IPR out on  
the table before a draft is sponsored to progress to an RFC, see draft- 
polk-ipr-disclosure-00.)   I would rather be spending my time on  
technical issues, and I'm sure that you feel the same way, but we do  
need to make sure that the IPR issues get handled.