William H. Geiger III says:
In <9807010643(_dot_)AA29576(_at_)watpub1(_dot_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>,
on 07/01/98
at 02:43 AM, Uri Blumenthal <uri(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> said:
Because today it is possible to have a free and legal
^^^^
implementation of RSA. But it is not possible to have
a free and legal implementation of ECC.
No, no it's not. RSADSI charges $20,000 to use their algorithms in any
program other than freeware along with some other rather unacceptable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
conditions to it's use.
"Other than freeware"? How is it "not" exactly what I said?
My grief with ECC is that TODAY you cannot have freeware (it appears that
Certicom is going to do something about that, but let's wait and see).
IMHO the only reason RSA is still in the spec is due to the large user
base of 2.6.x users.
Probably. Never cared much one way or the other.
The IETF is moving away from the use of encumbered algorithms and I see no
reason why we should reverse the trend here.
Wuld you find me dense if I ask: what is it that you suggest?
--
Regards,
Uri uri(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<Disclaimer>