"Keith" == Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Keith> RSA can complain "but that's *our* protocol", and IETF will
Keith> duly record that complaint, but that by itself won't stop
Keith> IETF from considering whether to use it.
Keith> Call it whatever you like, but that's what RFC 2026 says.
Excuse me, but who cares what RFC 2036 says? I thought we weren't
discussing what RFC 2036 got to tell us?
Keith> I strongly suspect that people are missing my point, but
Keith> I'm tired of trying to explain it. So I'll stop. If you
Keith> want further clarification, ask me in private mail.
Well, it is very possible that your point is missed/misunderstood.
However, let me explain what is the point that [mostly] everybody
else is making: there is a proprietary algorithm that some would
want to "bless" as a standard, because they were [un]lucky enough
to purchase a license and implement it in their products. Others
are afraid [and for a reason] that such an inclusion will make an
unencumbered implementation impossible due to a lawsuit threat
from the algorithm "owner". Those others thus violently
object against any attempt to sneak RC2 in.
It does NOT matter whether IESG allows to document an algorithm,
such as RC2. It does NOT matter whether a standard that includes
such an algorithm would or would not violate IETF rules (however
there is a strong opinion that it would).
What DOES matter is that accepting such an algorithm can [and
most probably will] negatively affect the availability of the
implementations. Everybody wants a standard that is free [to
The rest is irrelevant, IMHO.
Regards, [To reply, remove "NOSPAM!" from the
Uri "Reply-To:" field]