[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft of the ISAKMP/Oakley draft
> Elliptic Curve Cryptography should be given every consideration by
> the IETF. It is the technology that will provide long term Security
> under all application environments over the INTERNET. The need for
> Elliptic Curve Cryptography will become more important as more
> elements
> of the INTERNET and Intranets go Wireless.
I don't follow the above. How does any of this motivate ECC over
modular exponentiation, for example?
> Both implementations over GF(p) and GF(2^^N) should be considered from
> efficiency point of view, there are very efficient Implementations
> over GF(2^^N) in both hardware and software. The availability of
> mod p arithmetic for implementation is not a convincing argument to
> drop GF(2^^N) and only propose GF(p). As was mentiond in Eurocrypt
> GF(2^^N) can be implemented using mod p too.
No one has proposed dropping GF[2^n], as far as I know. However, I
don't believe that GF[p] has enough demonstrated merit to be included
in an IETF standard. I could certainly be persuaded by running code
and blazingly fast times.
> As for the patents issues, it is imprtant to note that any existing
> or pending patents in GF(2^^N) or GF(p) are on Implementation only
> and not over the Mathematical Concepts. The mathematics is free there
> for any body who wants to implement. There are FREE Implementations
> as well as Commercial ones. The Patent issues should be undertood
> in this context.
It's my understanding, as a non-lawyer, acting on my own mathematical
understanding and with advice from others, that there is a patent on
an efficient software implementation of key exchange using GF[p]. The
patent issue should be understood in this context, i.e. cryptographic
uses of GF[p]. Because efficiency should be an important
consideration for the IETF, I view the encumbrance on what may be the
most efficient implementation of an algorithm to be a matter for
consideration by this group. I also encourage others to investigate
the patent situation and report back.
> I believe the issues of patents over ECC should not be viewed as
> the issue of Patents in Legacy Algorithms like DH(now free) and RSA,
> in the Legacy Systems the Mathematical Concepts where patented and
> Royalties will be claimed when ever and implementaion is done while
> in ECC the case is VERY different.
You may well be wrong.
Hilarie
> Regards
> Adel Jaber/Certicom
> WWW.CERTICOM.COM