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

Jacob Appelbaum <> Wed, 14 January 2015 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699531ACD46 for <>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:01:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9e97NAPRO-JP for <>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6445C1ACE20 for <>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c9so5162303qcz.10 for <>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:01:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Tpco4GxK8hL32nKde00q+gmziqfCAPXqqZSYnw7bgYM=; b=OfxWfAsfU5k9wiIdVwGVQfz1d7kH26cOy5A2zMoYgTBnBGV+qACvyOWxgjSaoxl34P yriTN4kzgPzoQ5EnhyEyDwYxDHQqp3LGMuoJuNI49OyCyTqYyIpIsRkqbSOI4e9VR+Jb XgPSlz92V0A6nqEzo1ixQznAm7tFZwcOxQ6wkOnL1W2qvudWS/jPXdEJReZwDcdr+tFK 5Zz8UNnsjLAVsKTO3fXEZXhG73cr9EG2DFmmRwAIWpeyEUecHhHoY1O+TNs1LGtJK+Pp tg6t6sw4EUSurQPrlOCgLqgvEyWaQjpV37b5QGysdKX1bZjr+GQiFbv9GT8rZS5hVHGx xQjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkaOx5CzaaLiPBPFkNarAkx0JoOWnUbsN65+NpSjHwxCPiC9hGsqZT1xvkHDmcr7vpJWKXd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id u2mr2507626qat.70.1421197286713; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:01:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:01:26 +0000
Message-ID: <>
From: Jacob Appelbaum <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: TLS Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:01:29 -0000

On 1/13/15, 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 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

"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,