Re: Reasons to include ECC to our charter

[Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:49 PM +0100 9/4/01, Ben Laurie wrote:

>That's precisely the issue - how do we make sure it doesn't assume a
>patented technology if we don't know what the patents are?
>
>Why should this WG spend its time on stuff that may end up patented? By
>all means, once its clear what we can and can't use, then let's proceed.
>Until then, what's the point?
>

If someone comes up with a layout that supports ECC generically, I'd say go
with it.

I have no idea how to do that, myself. But if someone else does the work
and convinces us that it's generic, I say go for it. That's also why I said
to do an informational RFC, make a sample implementation, let someone hack
up GPG to work with it, and we'll see.

But all of this has a lot of ifs wrapped around it.

	Jon