Re: [saag] Proposal to Consolidate Algorithms Registries

[Satoru Kanno <[e-mail]>]

(2011/11/17 18:58), Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Satoru Kanno<[e-mail]>  writes:
> 
>> Hi Simon and Phillip,
>>
>> (2011/11/16 16:27), Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Phillip Hallam-Baker<[e-mail]>   writes:
>>>
>>>> There is no shortage of cryptographic algorithms. I can't see why TLS
>>>> should even spend the time considering Camellia if there was any doubt
>>>> about the ability to use it in IPSEC. The only algorithms I can ever see
>>>> being worth consideration at this point would be ones that are sufficiently
>>>> general purpose that they can be used in multiple protocols.
>>>>
>>>> What I am proposing instead is a low bar to making Camellia an option in
>>>> any IETF protocol. I believe this to be a Pareto improvement as follows:
>>>>
>>>> * The developers of Camellia can get their algorithm enabled as an option
>>>> in all IETF protocols in a single operation.
>>>
>>> The situation with Camellia has another angle to it: the patent
>>> statements about it only applies to specific protocols, and there are
>>> now statements for (at least) TLS and Kerberos.  If Camellia is to be
>>> considered for any other protocol, a new patent disclosure is required.
>>> So Camellia is not intended to be a general purpose cipher.
>>>
>>
>> Up to now, because we proposed adding the Camellia cipher to each
>> protocols, we filed the Camellia IPRs for the relevant WGs.
>>
>> If IETF changes the policy of addition of cipher algorithms to new
>> one, of course, NTT&  Mitsubishi intend to file for the revised
>> general-purpose IPR which permits to use Camellia cipher in any
>> protocols in IETF.
> 
> I do not believe the IETF has changed any policy in this area.  The
> essential policies are described in RFC 3979 [1].  You could file a
> general patent disclosure on Camellia instead of a specific disclosure
> for each and every draft.
> 
> Generally, you are at liberty to use any license you want for your
> patent, but the community is at liberty to ignore your work if the
> license is considered to "get in the way".
> 
> I for one would welcome a new general patent disclosures that says you
> permit use of Camellia for any purpose to everyone.
> 

Thanks, Simon.
We understand your useful opinion.
As soon as possible, We start to discuss with our intellectual property
center whether we will revise our present IPRs to a new general-purpose IPR.

Regards,


> /Simon
> 
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt
> 


-- 
Satoru Kanno

Security Business Unit
Mobile and Security Solution Business Group
NTT Software Corporation

e-mail: [e-mail]