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

Alexey Melnikov <> Fri, 19 December 2014 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F4F1A1B0D for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:04:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pX90hIIM2F3K for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:04:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AAE1A000B for <>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:04:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1418947481;; s=selector;; bh=YOJUC1IOLw5cdfX5PNvScL8xUJx2ZvLoMNECeVtPeO0=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=Ex9rguFT90vl5DcHvallSYLEUWQzZw8I5Q/szxtKx9xI18AEi966hlR20wVdkv6WKZX7yf YyGPkDe5pgqpzN3+rpl3sWHDgcBhv9Z9VKdPsI9bhvlKoWTiOyYcOx/nFBonFxopNKUvhk CXabkEUgsvQLhfEy1DSZSM9MQnPRjgw=;
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:04:41 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:04:44 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
To: Robert Ransom <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:04:46 -0000


On 14/12/2014 21:16, Robert Ransom wrote:
> * Section 10 (‘Intellectual Property Rights’) of draft-black-rpgecc-00
>    makes a general statement about the IPR status of the curves
>    specified in the document.  Although that is not a statement about
>    ‘specific IPR’, which section 11 of RFC 3979 (BCP 79) explicitly
>    forbids, I believe that the IPR statement in draft-black-rpgecc-00
>    raises some of the same concerns which section 11 of RFC 3979 states
>    as the rationale for forbidding IETF Documents and RFC Editor
>    Documents from including statements about ‘specific IPR’.
The statement in the draft is not a declaration of IPR specific or 
general - it's a confirmation that the authors know of *no* IPR. I am 
pretty sure that authors included this in order to be helpful and save 
RG participants a datatracker search, and not for any nefarious reason.

So I don't believe that your reaction to this section being present is 
>    Thus, I
>    believe that section 10 of draft-black-rpgecc-00 is in violation of
>    BCP 79.  The authors of draft-black-rpgecc-00 stated in the draft
>    that it was ‘submitted in full conformance with the provisions of
>    BCP 78 and BCP 79’.
I think calling this a "violation" is uncalled for, since the statement 
by the authors is not a declaration of IPR. So at best, this is a nit 
that could easily be addressed by removing the section. The authors 
would not even need to make any IPR declaration in the datatracker, 
since they apparently know of no IPR and the datatracker doesn't even 
offer to record these cases.

So by including the statement as they did, the authors are actually 
giving the RG more information that would otherwise be available, which 
is a good thing IMO.

As a co-chair.