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

[Jacob Appelbaum <[e-mail]>]

On 1/13/15, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> 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 don't see it as problematic at all. It is his right and also his
responsibility. I think it is fantastic that Phil Rogaway is aware of
his power and uses it. It sounds like he willing to talk about it too.
This discussion even comes up because of that reasonable use of power.

The concern trolling and endorsement of the military is much more
problematic, frankly. Especially since we know that they run people as
part of the BULLRUN[0] programs to influence standards bodies - such
as the IETF specifically!

Hopefully OCB will be included in TLS 1.3 without a separate RFC. It
seems like Phil's page has specific licenses that are very
reasonable[1]:

"That said, I have freely licensed any IP I own over a very large
space: there is one license grant for open-source software; one for
non-military software; and a third done just for OpenSSL.

All the best,
Jacob

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)
[1] http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#patent:phil