On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 19:40 +0100, Niels Möller wrote: > Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: > > > To revive this discussion, it seems that there is a proposal to add OCB in > > TLS. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zauner-tls-aes-ocb-00 > > I guess we need to get into release mode soon (I'll send another message > to try to sort out loose ends), but it might be possible to to ocb. I've > had a quick look at RFC7253. According to wikipedia > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCB_mode), that is "OCB2", is that the > relevant version? > > Has the ietf discussion clarified the patent issues? > > I'm going to mail fsf lawyers about the patent license > (http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license1.pdf), I suspect they're > not compatible with the LGPL.
It is that one: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7253 Let me know if you get some reply from FSF. In that case I'd recommend against standardizing OCB in the IETF TLS WG. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
