Re: [Cfrg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-whyte-select-pkc-qsh-00.txt

["Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[e-mail]>]

In my 2+ decades of IETF/IRTF experience, the choice has been to stay away
from patented non-free algorithms, period. Thus an acceptable candidate
algorithm must be FPARF (Free or Patented and Royalty-Free for use in IETF
protocols :).

As a side-note, I’ve yet to see a license-able product that claims to NOT
subscribe to "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory licensing”, so that’s
pretty much a null-statement (or no-op,  depending on your preference :).

P.S. I concur with Stephen: "anyone spending time here on developing or
reviewing proposals that involve encumbered crypto algorithms is simply
wasting that time."
-- 
Regards,
Uri Blumenthal





On 9/21/15, 8:50 , "Cfrg on behalf of Stephen Farrell"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>Hi William,
>On 21/09/15 03:52, William Whyte wrote:
>>    The candidate algorithm MAY be either non-patented or patented but
>>    with FRAND (Free or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) licensing
>>    statement made and all relevant IETF IP declarations provided.
>
>That's a good statement of a what I figure may be a formally
>acceptable (if novel) IPR condition. However,...
>
>In the real world, I would confidently predict that any algorithm
>that is in practice encumbered will not be widely deployed. I think
>we've seen plenty of evidence for that opinion.
>
>My personal conclusion from all of that is that anyone spending time
>here on developing or reviewing proposals that involve encumbered
>crypto algorithms is simply wasting that time. I do get that others
>can validly have different opinions on that, but wearing an IETF hat,
>I'd argue that this RG is far more useful the more it deals with
>what might get widespread deployment at "Internet scale" (or some
>such phrasing).
>
>So, I'd suggest instead to adopt the IPR goals that this RG set for
>itself when considering new curves. IIRC, that boils down to saying
>that only things believed to be in practice unencumbered should ever
>be considered in any detail.
>
>One could also perhaps add a condition that only things with IPR
>declarations likely to be acceptable by today's most common open-source
>crypto libraries should be considered.
>
>Cheers,
>S.
>
>PS: Note that I'm not arguing the pros and cons of patenting algorithms
>above - if someone has some patent there is nothing to stop them from
>making their algorithm freely usable. (Hence the "in practice" phrase
>above.)
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cfrg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg