IETF Logo Mail Archive

Why ECC?

Rodney Thayer <rodney@tillerman.to> Tue, 24 September 2002 15:12 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01591 for <openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:12:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g8OF5L222674 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yancy.pkiclue.com (IDENT:root@yancy.pkiclue.com [209.172.115.117]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g8OF5Kv22669 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rt-dt.pkiclue.com (IDENT:root@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by yancy.pkiclue.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22183 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:05:08 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20020924075702.01e32650@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: pkiclue@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:58:55 -0700
To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org
From: Rodney Thayer <rodney@tillerman.to>
Subject: Why ECC?
In-Reply-To: <200209240702.TAA39132@ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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>

At 07:02 PM 9/24/2002 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:

>Len Sassaman <rabbi@abditum.com> writes:
>
> >OpenSSL now has ECC in it
>
>That's not certain yet, the licensing terms are such that it can't be used
>under the OpenSSL license unless Sun re-release it unencumbered.
>
> >and there is an ECC in TLS draft being proposed
>
>... by the same group who did the OpenSSL implementation.  Hardly an
>overwhelming argument.


Why do we want ECC in OpenPGP?

Why do we want to start using a class of algorithm that is patent encumbered?

Having corporations show up at working group meetings and threaten implementors
with patent infringement is a pain.

I don't see a requirement to add this.

A separate document describing it would of course be perfectly reasonable.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email