Re: [Cfrg] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Time for security reviewers is a precious resource in cryptography. It
should be focused on the cryptographic systems that will have maximum
impact. I would therefore support a CFRG policy against spending time on
anything with a patent that doesn't expire soon (1 year? 2 years?).

However, I also think that this policy shouldn't be triggered without

   * a statement of the patent number and relevant claims (so other
     people have a way to check that there's actually a problem) and

   * a statement of the expiration date of the patent (so other people
     can see when it's safe to return to something previously patented).

It would have been helpful for users if, e.g., ECDSA standards had said
"We're using the following inferior design choices from NSA to avoid the
following claims from Schnorr patent 4995082, which will expire in 2008."

---Dan