Re: undefined MAY algorithm example (Re: Question and note)

[Uri Blumenthal <uri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

William H. Geiger III says:
> In <9807010643.AA29576@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 07/01/98 
>    at 02:43 AM, Uri Blumenthal <uri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> 
> >Because today it is possible to have a free and legal
                                          ^^^^
> >implementation of RSA. But it is not possible to have
> >a free and legal implementation of ECC. 
> 
> No, no it's not. RSADSI charges $20,000 to use their algorithms in any
> program other than freeware along with some other rather unacceptable
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> conditions to it's use.


"Other than freeware"? How is it "not" exactly what I said? 

My grief with ECC is that TODAY you cannot have freeware (it appears that
Certicom is going to do something about that, but let's wait and see).

> IMHO the only reason RSA is still in the spec is due to the large user
> base of 2.6.x users.

Probably. Never cared much one way or the other.

> The IETF is moving away from the use of encumbered algorithms and I see no
> reason why we should reverse the trend here.

Wuld you find me dense if I ask: what is it that you suggest?
-- 
Regards,
Uri		uri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<Disclaimer>