Re: DRAFT minutes, SACRED WG, Minneapolis IETF

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If none of the protocols is patent free, why we do not make the following
> choice:
> The requirement and standard do not specify any algorithm, leave it as a
> black-box... And the standard should be general enough so that most of the
> algorithms could be implemented (each algorithm should have a unique
> identifier).

We MUST end up with an interoperable protocol. That means choosing one
of everything that can be chosen, including authentication schemes as
the mandatory-to-implement. We will ensure that implementations are
able to flag other options (and might even generate some WG documents
about them). 

One your second note, my interpretation would be that PDM doesn't
have to support multiple types of cryptography like ECC, since 
from the sacred perspective, PDM itself is an algorithm (i.e. if you
had an EC variant, it wouldn't be PDM, but PDM-EC or something).

Stephen.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com