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

[Benjamin Black <[e-mail]>]

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


b

On Thursday, November 27, 2014, Michael Hamburg <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Alyssa Rowan <[e-mail]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> 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
> [e-mail] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>
>