IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3

Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org> Tue, 13 January 2015 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <azet@azet.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B90D1A6FF7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:33:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BU8LNIGx0v4c for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D1B01A6F2A for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l15so22932260wiw.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:33:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=2B4oxeYVFfULln3w7V7qkm532YeKGLesUVsGtTeJ9Yg=; b=TC2Uo7o8TRThheIt8xf45hBKmpw3VRItgyjrQRd2D6sSYkRWlpEp6CLbDONvlGCBB6 w/OmoeZHidCg0oBNxR8kdP8sGrL2vxS0UjvFnBrFk+UcArNMKs9x9i7DLO1931fOR6bk wvOFV4mn7tJQ1mawkCr+n6xGg31kOrxTCEmZiHh4rqUwxizgE5tQ5PVtO+iIg1xRPWk/ HC/+oPyeOdRV09YeReyXLyDzfY3rVsL78Qt/WzsQoIqQo/GQs5O9H40hjo6Okzc9OtHY /3rKyVTfZaukmVqFDO610PCHY0WeEeK35Lu+5stgHULmy/saovdxj8EMJhgsg7XA5vm/ a3zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk0teJTIsSAu+FhioCXuAbSQ07lBoq/k5b0DdQvKCRK6UTHBJfV7JE+38f5akV9QWHovCMI
X-Received: by 10.180.21.225 with SMTP id y1mr6439952wie.42.1421170380174; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.23.139] (chello084112076043.34.11.vie.surfer.at. [84.112.76.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cs8sm15152557wib.1.2015.01.13.09.32.58 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54B556C7.4070808@azet.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:32:55 +0100
From: Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
References: <54B5501A.4070402@azet.org> <CABkgnnWoyDHndgARGLVv0PV3SDr-FCyq_PiiG=knKtz6fEbjXA@mail.gmail.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C71D55AEC364@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C71D55AEC364@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig083DD899B55C3347C37FA3C6"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/MwhADR_ZwecAOOoUrnKBWeCRDVE>
Cc: TLS Mailing List <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:33:03 -0000


Salz, Rich wrote:
>> There are, of course, reasons why people would not want to accept a
>> proposal like that.  More cipher suites isn't strictly a good thing.
>> Of course, if OCB is demonstrably better in some fashion (speed, security,
>> whatever it happens to be), then that makes the case easier.
> 
> That "no military use" being particularly problematic.  Does anyone know if the IETF has other IPR grants with similar field-of-use limitations?
> 
I agree (actually, personally; I do not care). But it seems to have made
through CFRG/IESG review and was accepted (see rogaways email regarding
IPR issues). Can someone with more knowledge about handling IPR issues
like this very specific one comment on this?

Thanks,
Aaron

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email