Re: Comments on ECC draft

"Dominikus Scherkl" <> Tue, 24 September 2002 10:43 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22060 for <>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 06:43:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g8OAZCc05330 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 03:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g8OAZAv05322 for <>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 03:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: Comments on ECC draft
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:35:05 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Re: Comments on ECC draft
thread-index: AcJjTjiZaGHl8GkrR6Gx2zu+saQuiQATRJJQAAZxx3A=
From: "Dominikus Scherkl" <>
To: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by id g8OAZCv05327
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


> I'd like to bring this up again before the next revision of 
> the draft. How close are we to consensus on the ECC semantics?

Indeed I thought there isn't anybody interessted in this...
what a very positive surprise.

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 wrote:
> > We have been looking at the ECC issue and have a few 
> > comments on the proposed draft by Dominikus Scherkl and
> > Christoph Fausak.
> >
> > Broadly speaking it looks very good.

As the IEEE has changed it's proposed standard P1363 to allow
for an additionaly point-compression method with no patents
on it (I worked hardly on this), we should have no problem
with this topic.
But I don't know about the current status of other pending
patents. (Looking at Annex G of IEEE P1363a/D10.8 may be a good
idea, but most of the patents mentioned there cover other parts
of that proposed standard).

I will soon submit an updated version of my (long ago expired)
draft soon...

> I'm not against ECC in OpenPGP, but given how close 2440bis 
> is to last call, perhaps the ECC specification could go in a
> companion RFC?
This way is what I intended with my draft.
And I think there's no need to hurry, too, but

> > OpenSSL now has ECC in it, and there is an ECC in TLS draft 
> > being proposed
> That's not certain yet, [and the TLS draft is]
> ... by the same group who did the OpenSSL implementation.

do we realy need to be the last to add ECC to our standard ?

Best regards,
Dominikus Scherkl