Dear Paul:
Please note that my suggested changes only deal with facilitating the
use of accelerated ECDSA verification techniques, not their use. After
all, it is up to implementers to decide whether or not to use these
*optional* verification techniques. Reason to separate the "facilitation
of speed-ups" and the "speed-ups" themselves, was to avoid any potential
IPR fears for those parties that are happy to facilitate others to reap
the rewards of computational speed-ups on the verification side, by
virtue of generating these in the friendly format suggested.
It would help if you could indicate in detail the IPR that would be
necessarily infringed by implementing the proposed standard (with my
suggested changes), so that I can investigate. If you wish, please
contact me offline on this.
Best regards, Rene
--
email: rstruik(_dot_)ext(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658
USA Google voice: +1 (415) 690-7363
On 17/11/2010 3:02 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 3:19 PM -0500 11/15/10, Rene Struik wrote:
Dear colleagues:
Please find below my comments on IETF draft document
draft-igoe-secsh-x509v3-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call.
The changes you propose have serious IPR considerations that are not present in
the current document. If you want to propose IPR-laden optimizations, it is
better to do so as a separate document so implementers can see the differences
easily.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
--
email: rstruik(_dot_)ext(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658
USA Google voice: +1 (415) 690-7363
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf