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