Re: New work for sacred working group?

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Peter,

Peter Gutmann wrote:
> I'm reading it, but purely in passive mode.  In theory I'd be strongly opposed
> to the use of any crippled/patented technology in Sacred (particularly when
> there are unencumbered alternatives available), but since I'm not an
> implementor it's really just a personal opinion.

Well, ignoring Radia & Charlie's proposal for the moment, I'm
not sure that we really do have an unencumbered equivalent, at
least at the "mechanism" level (if you know what I mean), but
I do take your point about opposing encumbrances generally.

I guess when considering SPEKE, partly we're trying
to see whether the Phoenix folks end up with an IPR position
that would garner enough suppoor that we get WG consensus to
reactivate this WG...or not...and IMO if more people can
explicitly say what they'd find (un)acceptable on the
list, then that might well influence the outcome (or at
least speed things up somewhat:-)

Stephen.