Re: Comments on ECC draft

["Dominikus Scherkl" <Dominikus.Scherkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello.

> 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?

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

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 hal@xxxxxxxxxx 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
dominikus.scherkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx