Re: Why ECC?
email@example.com (Peter Gutmann) Tue, 24 September 2002 16:56 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [18.104.22.168])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05851
for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g8OGmJL28528 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.cs.auckland.ac.nz (hermes.cs.auckland.ac.nz [22.214.171.124]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g8OGmHv28522 for <email@example.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz (ruru-nfs.cs.auckland.ac.nz [126.96.36.199]) by hermes.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g8OGmDNF026227; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:48:13 +1200
Received: (from pgut001@localhost) by ruru.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.8.6/cs-slave) id EAA76653; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:48:13 +1200 (NZST) (sender firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:48:13 +1200 (NZST)
From: email@example.com (Peter Gutmann)
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: Why ECC?
"Michael Young" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >At 03:18 AM 9/25/2002 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote: >>Because it already contains every algorithm anyone could think of anyway, >>and a few more for implementors to ignore wouldn't matter? > >I took Peter's comment as a joke, a jab at the load of things already there. It was intended as a joke, although you have to be quite careful here because these things tend to come true - PKIX is currently busy standardising something which started as a joke by Bob Jueneman some years ago and which I suggested as an April 1 RFC more recently. Hmm, there's a thought: <loudly> Next thing you know I'll walk out the door and trip over the brand-new Sun 15K which someone left there for me. </loudly> Peter (ever hopeful).