Re: Reasons to include ECC to our charter

[Ben Laurie <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon Callas wrote:
> 
> 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.

What will we see? Clearly its possible to do - so what's interesting
about doing it before we can be sure we can use it?

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff