Re: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]

Michael Hamburg <mike@shiftleft.org> Thu, 27 November 2014 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@shiftleft.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6F21A006E for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:47:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.556
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YlI_VoFvnh1e for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aspartame.shiftleft.org (199-116-74-168-v301.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net [199.116.74.168]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 353F41A002B for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.10.9] (mobile-166-171-248-169.mycingular.net [166.171.248.169]) by aspartame.shiftleft.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00D4B3AC24; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:45:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=shiftleft.org; s=sldo; t=1417124746; bh=GqtAqeHTDRKi84M8UInXZDqxTDPcxXMCLr8gbEO4Gu4=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=jacTop6MN+xz3jOR0p2/J08yakJwlSA/ePeJB2xA8kW7tiy31FBVPluNHwtdsuZqc 2ZWTtSwj1E4+AXeSFHguU1luAvHOcZ2dzVnvnh9N909FbrxiGECOSyP+h7i7Eqht0g lrH8ZHblLR+d26sEJL1d+DmixT7UFcM9+/6ZIhrU=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_164FE5D3-8468-44C9-A2AA-65917DAFAC1D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Michael Hamburg <mike@shiftleft.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+Vbu7zXbKTehB0APPAqFZYZmyP94U-+oOsGMcO846jhKUdY6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:47:25 -0800
Message-Id: <FA40B02F-A8BE-4C8A-B012-A527406CBF02@shiftleft.org>
References: <CA+Vbu7xvvfRWyqyE9sqU7VbjzNQZp+DwRWjaV3Lw0hjLr8ye1A@mail.gmail.com> <5476CB73.7090206@akr.io> <CA+Vbu7zXbKTehB0APPAqFZYZmyP94U-+oOsGMcO846jhKUdY6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/68voeWp1lkINGhPAmTT-hU50I3g
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 21:47:32 -0000

Hi Benjamin,

That reminds me — not that this has much bearing on the latest draft — but did that Microsoft investigation into the ‘907 patent ever conclude one way or the other?

Thanks,
— Mike

> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>; wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Alyssa Rowan <akr@akr.io <mailto:akr@akr.io>> wrote:
> 
> The IPR section in that draft is remarkably short: of course you
> cannot patent numbers. (That's copyright's job. <g>) In order to
> satisfy IP1 and IP2 requirements we're going to need more information
> about the status of specific algorithms on those curves which people
> will actually use. As Dan Brown's recent message should highlight, we
> should evaluate the patent status and can't ignore it (unless we plan
> on ignoring them for long enough that they go away, and in that case,
> we need to know when!).
> 
> We are aware of no IP whatsoever covering the contents of the draft. I will update the IPR statement to be more clear.
>  
> 
> b
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg