Subject: [TLS] AES-GCM drafts as WG items

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:29:04 +0200

The meeting in Prague earlier today supported adopting the two 
AES-GCM documents (draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm and
draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb) as TLS working group documents. 

As usual, the WG consensus needs to be confirmed on the mailing list.
Please mail me and Eric (or the whole list) if you object to
using these documents as starting points for further WG work.

(If you have a comment about some technical detail of the drafts,
please use a separate thread. It's already known that the documents
are not ready, and need more work.)

Best regards,
Pasi

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:13:34 +0100

> using these documents as starting points for further WG work.

Have the authors filed the required IPR disclosures?

If I can't implement these documents due to patents, I'd object to
adopting them intended for standards-track status.

There is a IPR disclose related to ECC at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=750

The information in the PDF suggests to me that not everything can be
implemented freely.  It further says that the disclosure doesn't cover
other IETF documents, which presumably would include
draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb.

I'm not familiar with the IPR status of AES-GCM.  Anyone else who
knows more?

Btw, SHA-2 is patented by NSA, but they have not yet filed the
required disclosure to the IETF.

/Simon

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:51:40 -0700

> Have the authors filed the required IPR disclosures?

I was thinking that the ECC disclosures covered this, since it's the
same algorithms as in the existing ECC RFC (RFC 4492) Sounds like it
doesn't, so I'll need to file something... It's now on my list.

> adopting them intended for standards-track status.

The plan would be the same Info status as RFC 4492.

> draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb.

Thanks for the heads-up on this.

> I'm not familiar with the IPR status of AES-GCM.  Anyone else who

Not sure, but other GCM drafts have no IPR disclosures.

> required disclosure to the IETF.

I was not aware of this. The usual procedure is for someone to file
a 3rd party disclosure and then the secretariat will contact
the patent holder...

-Ekr

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:12:58 +0100

> doesn't, so I'll need to file something... It's now on my list.

Thanks!

> The plan would be the same Info status as RFC 4492.

Great.  Then I have no objection to adopting the document.

I note that draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-00 says:
  Intended status: Standards Track

> a 3rd party disclosure and then the secretariat will contact

I filed this some time ago, but I've no idea if the secretariat have
done anything with it.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=795

/Simon

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:38:10 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=795

I talked with our new AD about this, and he promised to get in
touch with the right persons inside NIST and NSA to make
sure this is handled according to the IETF rules.

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:03:51 -0400

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:51:40 -0700

> a 3rd party disclosure and then the secretariat will contact
I've been working with NIST to get a statement from NSA.  Thus far,
they've said nothing, but I was told it would take a while.  I should
note that from historical precedent, there's virtually no chance that
NSA would impose any conditions -- they *want* it widely used.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb