Re: [saag] Proposal to Consolidate Algorithms Registries

Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> Thu, 17 November 2011 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <simon@josefsson.org>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F57721F9B3B for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:58:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.712, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4rupOKcO82mT for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yxa-v.extundo.com (static-213-115-179-173.sme.bredbandsbolaget.se [213.115.179.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B30821F9B3A for <saag@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from latte.josefsson.org (static-213-115-179-130.sme.bredbandsbolaget.se [213.115.179.130]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa-v.extundo.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id pAH9wiWY025267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:58:45 +0100
From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
To: Satoru Kanno <kanno.satoru@po.ntts.co.jp>
References: <CAMm+LwiFts406H=WNu5XCMOxTj0=9VK56Ti3aUxUqRthP-xEgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiVxTQG_i15Q6YCCtKbZHORq--iDFQ=poYeGF6AdaHAfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwioQiF167ewRJAZoeB180MSH6SPkyWcG1XgKNJ0wsj+NQ@mail.gmail.com> <87sjlo4je3.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <4EC44D40.1000703@po.ntts.co.jp>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:22:111117:kanno.satoru@po.ntts.co.jp::3l47xd3jI29oFv4P:Tzp
X-Hashcash: 1:22:111117:saag@ietf.org::ibahv76pFX//BDA+:MgYa
X-Hashcash: 1:22:111117:hallam@gmail.com::+f31DzDvxZVzgjbs:zV7h
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:58:44 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4EC44D40.1000703@po.ntts.co.jp> (Satoru Kanno's message of "Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:54:40 +0900")
Message-ID: <87vcqjm5nv.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at yxa-v
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, saag@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [saag] Proposal to Consolidate Algorithms Registries
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:58:53 -0000

Satoru Kanno <kanno.satoru@po.ntts.co.jp> writes:

> Hi Simon and Phillip,
>
> (2011/11/16 16:27), Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Phillip Hallam-Baker<hallam@gmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> There is no shortage of cryptographic algorithms. I can't see why TLS
>>> should even spend the time considering Camellia if there was any doubt
>>> about the ability to use it in IPSEC. The only algorithms I can ever see
>>> being worth consideration at this point would be ones that are sufficiently
>>> general purpose that they can be used in multiple protocols.
>>>
>>> What I am proposing instead is a low bar to making Camellia an option in
>>> any IETF protocol. I believe this to be a Pareto improvement as follows:
>>>
>>> * The developers of Camellia can get their algorithm enabled as an option
>>> in all IETF protocols in a single operation.
>>
>> The situation with Camellia has another angle to it: the patent
>> statements about it only applies to specific protocols, and there are
>> now statements for (at least) TLS and Kerberos.  If Camellia is to be
>> considered for any other protocol, a new patent disclosure is required.
>> So Camellia is not intended to be a general purpose cipher.
>>
>
> Up to now, because we proposed adding the Camellia cipher to each
> protocols, we filed the Camellia IPRs for the relevant WGs.
>
> If IETF changes the policy of addition of cipher algorithms to new
> one, of course, NTT & Mitsubishi intend to file for the revised
> general-purpose IPR which permits to use Camellia cipher in any
> protocols in IETF.

I do not believe the IETF has changed any policy in this area.  The
essential policies are described in RFC 3979 [1].  You could file a
general patent disclosure on Camellia instead of a specific disclosure
for each and every draft.

Generally, you are at liberty to use any license you want for your
patent, but the community is at liberty to ignore your work if the
license is considered to "get in the way".

I for one would welcome a new general patent disclosures that says you
permit use of Camellia for any purpose to everyone.

/Simon

[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt