PS:
* Aaron Zauner [06/08/2015 00:48:03] wrote:
> I've written to Gligor and Donescu (his mail address is bouncing though
> and I do not have another/current one). I've not received any replies as
> of today. Rogaway, like myself, is not sure if that patent actually
> relates to OCB. He's include
Hi,
Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> Great work! I can't wait to see OCB standardized and implemented.
>
> One thing though. There has been mentioning of Gligor patent(s) - were you
> able to look into that? Or perhaps Phil or Charanjit could comment on this
> (though technic
Aaron,
Great work! I can't wait to see OCB standardized and implemented.
One thing though. There has been mentioning of Gligor patent(s) - were you able
to look into that? Or perhaps Phil or Charanjit could comment on this (though
technical people seldom make legal statements :)?
Sent from my
Hi,
A short update on the matter of IPR related to AES-OCB in TLS:
It took some time but over the past couple of weeks all IPR exemptions
have been filed by the original patent holders (Rogaway and IBM
[Jutla]). These IPR exemptions can be viewed over here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Martin Thomson
wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 10:24, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
>> The consistency you want to see seems to be
>> consistency with the AES GCM cipher suites, rather than with TLS 1.2.
>
> Yes, this is correct.
>
> RFC 5288:
> struct {
>
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:35:30AM -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> As for the wasted bytes, I don't care for that. We will fix that later.
It is not just wasted bytes.
It is also increased auditing requirements: Auditing that the nonce
generation is sound (e.g. not random).
And in constructs
Christer,
do agree of course.
But independent of the RFC 5764 correction, below clarification proposal for
rtcweb-transport remains valid (“due to the sharing assumption”).
Regards,
Albrecht
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 5. August 2015 10:13
To:
Roman, Bernard,
right, RFC 5764 is too vague on that aspect. Thanks for confirming the number
of DTLS sessions, which is inline with our understanding.
Would appreciate if this could be somewhere fixed in an rtcweb draft due to
significant side effects.
This topic is also an ongoing FAQ.
The mos
