Re: [openpgp] Pull request for AEAD encrypted data packet with GCM

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 14 February 2017 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D8E129985 for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:24:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zk5E59jNfO9f for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:24:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14E8012996F for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:24:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82446BE7B; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:24:26 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33WKPVayWjZX; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:24:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95887BE79; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:24:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1487035465; bh=QPKQHo8vgVJBo3V/0mxJv3aVCSzDJgj5tz+nypmLiyc=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=AQ5XdWedwAVNG40o2lqgxV77+jY0VIG4GU6CLTX9l7A5oCMKDyHbS4sbGWKtfIsJX gBdpVBLk0j+YTgiHEZa8mAaNDYhRBirKY3ZWiYtkExw/2Yc2tJpwBHK9rQoVhIyND3 DLyGiF1JhHwmpZkf2CxuQ9X4fmsznSCUwsBxvIhQ=
To: Jon Callas <>, "brian m. carlson" <>
References: <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:24:24 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GSjXh9VJ9BXm8XkffSJJ1cKqaDIGsjbxu"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Pull request for AEAD encrypted data packet with GCM
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:24:31 -0000

Just on one point...

On 14/02/17 01:09, Jon Callas wrote:
> We all really want to use OCB. If you look at
> <> which is
> Rogaway's page on it. While it is patented, there are some broad
> license grants.

A recurring issue with OCB in other contexts has been that it
it not only Rogaway's IPR that is at issue. Despite (what I
think is) his very flexible and reasonable way of handling his
own IPR, and even his efforts to get others to play ball, there
are multiple other parties involved, not all of whom are IIUC
equally reasonable (according to my personal view of what's

I don't know that that situation has resolved itself favourably
in any case to date. I'd be happy if it had though, so please
do follow up this with good news, if such exists.

This issue was discussed on both the CFRG and TLS lists, maybe
a year or two ago, so interested folks would benefit from
checking those archives for OCB related threads.


PS: Note that I'm not stating any opinion pro- or contra- GCM
nor any other AEAD construct here.