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

Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us> Thu, 27 November 2014 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <b@b3k.us>
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 CCC021A0117 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:49:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 ZggDfVvS6ot1 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:49:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5EF51A002B for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:49:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id y19so7406803wgg.28 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:49:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XmQqYuDLaplg6hagkHMY+Yep9s4XlfbTZutiDhW+/w8=; b=ilYCTxSJlHFogRgHxOkP+NozUsoh0P8hkQF6iLoOpVjxYSX4ZzdRngrvFXYDuo/nTR gRPMGH9sMazTyw/VlT9FRZTtaWo8QcPeKBheayoC9Hs4AHfocH/NJc26P2aQHic9QN9W i22HzYvBUg4wzhigI+tt8zcAspQUft61W6T4dqcTk4AmO5sxF7Jb+F8yAGoqt7I3jHFm a7AFCQD+dhSmVsREAzXkIK0hZVK7RcF0B/YFh5eUcQq7iMOMVZF4Ft3ccNI6/f19f4b6 I+LldplFE8IG4tW9FI7bHXUahoL09SL1KW7XcbQz4BuexawmbgYR3acOhkeVHyRcXsRm JryA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQncfnUa5DKrZD3jm7aR/RfHEZ3KfdXXaAKCVEDr8qOde3FuhOKT0636f0NsR6QOtkxHmY+r
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.108 with SMTP id nb12mr55453288wic.76.1417124951592; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.191.195 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:49:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <FA40B02F-A8BE-4C8A-B012-A527406CBF02@shiftleft.org>
References: <CA+Vbu7xvvfRWyqyE9sqU7VbjzNQZp+DwRWjaV3Lw0hjLr8ye1A@mail.gmail.com> <5476CB73.7090206@akr.io> <CA+Vbu7zXbKTehB0APPAqFZYZmyP94U-+oOsGMcO846jhKUdY6Q@mail.gmail.com> <FA40B02F-A8BE-4C8A-B012-A527406CBF02@shiftleft.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:49:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+Vbu7zv-JLMjDyqL0PQQTo1TWdiWdvZube0c1seXLBKGsaDmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>
To: Michael Hamburg <mike@shiftleft.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37d3257a8a20508de1db8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/7-tzm_AFEZk19-hBMEQCjZFP88A
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 21:49:15 -0000

I will follow up with folks after the holiday to see where we are.


b

On Thursday, November 27, 2014, Michael Hamburg <mike@shiftleft.org>; wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','b@b3k.us');>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Alyssa Rowan <akr@akr.io
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Cfrg@irtf.org');>
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>
>