Jon Callas <jon(_at_)callas(_dot_)org> writes:
Personally, I don't think that Camellia's (or any other symmetric
cipher's) patent status matters for us. An implementer can safely
ignore an algorithm with little impact.
The proposal was to make Camellia a normative reference in the base
OpenPGP document. I see a problem with that.
Having the reference be informational would be OK, as long as there
are no requirements to implement it. Only then can implementers that
wish to conform to the base spec safely ignore Camellia.
Given what people have said about NTT's intentions in this area, it
may be worthwhile to pursue and ask them to provide a better patent
license that would guarantee that Camellia can be used freely. But
that is a separate problem, and not related to OpenPGP. Until there
is a good license available, I would be against anything more than a
informational reference in the OpenPGP document.
/Simon