IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reasons to include ECC to our charter

Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk> Tue, 04 September 2001 22:04 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29299 for <openpgp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id f84Lnx501030 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk (sockittome.aldigital.co.uk [194.128.162.252]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f84LnwD01024 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from algroup.co.uk (wiese.ben.algroup.co.uk [193.133.15.150]) by scuzzy.ben.algroup.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985AD2E9BB; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:49:54 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3B954C82.D388947@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 22:49:54 +0100
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org
Subject: Re: Reasons to include ECC to our charter
References: <200108101342.BAA232398@ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz> <m15d9Cc-000Qe5C@epsilon> <3B93737C.1A87B234@algroup.co.uk> <p05100103b7baa69ace04@[129.46.76.229]> <p05100300b7bac4c03376@[63.73.97.180]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jon Callas wrote:
> We aren't going to make ECC a MUST or even a SHOULD. We will try very hard
> to make the formats for ECC not favor anyone's implementation. We all know
> that. So why don't we encourage some ECC experts to write an informational
> RFC, do some interoperability testing, and make sure that it doesn't assume
> a patented technology?

That's precisely the issue - how do we make sure it doesn't assume a
patented technology if we don't know what the patents are?

Why should this WG spend its time on stuff that may end up patented? By
all means, once its clear what we can and can't use, then let's proceed.
Until then, what's the point?

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email