Re: [IPsec] PAKE selection: PACE

["Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>]

  Hi Dennis,

  You made a very vague statement (SPEKE patent infringes on dragonfly).
I made a very detailed response to it, using the first independent claim
in a patent describing SPEKE, explaining why it did not apply.

  Now I make a detailed statement (SPEKE patent infringes on PACE, and
specifically it's the first independent claim of US 6,792,533). You
then make a vague response about how a password is used "only
temporarily", which responds neither to my statement nor to the specific
claim in the specific patent I mentioned, and then something that is
just factually incorrect: "[t]he key derivation step is completely
independent of the password."

  Try again, please. Make a detailed response to each part of the claim
and explain what in the claim does not apply to your proposal and why.
Give my statements the same level of respect that I have given yours.

  regards,

  Dan.

On Tue, June 1, 2010 6:19 am, Dennis Kügler wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>>   Hi Dennis,
>>
>>   I have read the PACE submission. I believe claim 1 of the SPEKE
>> patent,
>> US 6,792,533, covers this protocol. If you do think otherwise, please
>> explain why.
>
> This is very simple. The password is only temporarily used to protect a
> nonce
> sent to the other party. The key derivation step is completely independent
> of
> the password.