On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 19:58 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > 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.
In the case it is not compatible with LGPL. About the release... Since you added the fat, would it include AESNI +PCLMUL? If yes that would reduce significantly the assembly shipped in gnutls (only the padlock functions would remain). regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
