Re: New work for sacred working group?

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

This [1] is the relevant license, right? Too hard to read
this late in what's been a very nice summer's day here (i.e.
I'm off home now:-)

One question though: did you mean that you'd support doing
more work here, or are you saying there's no need since
you've already released your stuff?

Cheers,
Stephen (also nothing like a lawyer).


[1] http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html

Eric Grosse wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> I think encrypted key exchange protocols are exactly the right
> tool for credential download and I use them daily.  I am not a
> lawyer, but the Lucent Public License which covers the
> securestore implementation (and hence EKE and PAK) seems ok.
>
> Eric
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/factotum.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: New work for sacred working group?
> From:
> pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Gutmann)
> Date:
> Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:49:55 +1200
> To:
> ietf-sacred@xxxxxxx, stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx
>
> To:
> ietf-sacred@xxxxxxx, stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx
> CC:
> magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>
> > Does the lack of response mean that there's no longer much interest in using
> > schemes like SPEKE for credential download or that no-one's reading this list
> > anymore?
>
>
> 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.
>
> Peter.