[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal for new DH Groups 6, 7, and 8



  RFC2409 instructs IANA to assign new numbers to new groups if a
standards-track or Informational RFC exists. So drafts shouldn't just
claim parts of a numberspace that is reserved to IANA (i.e. groups 6-9).
This is from section 11.4 of RFC2409:

   Values of the Group Description Class identify a group to use in a
   Diffie-Hellman exchange. Values of the Group Type Class define the
   type of group. Requests for assignment of new groups must be
   accompanied by a reference to a standards-track or Informational RFC
   which describes this group. Requests for assignment of new group
   types must be accompanied by a reference to a standards-track or
   Informational RFC or by a reference to published cryptographic or
   mathmatical literature which describes the new type.

Also, section 4 of draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-ecc-groups-01.txt is troubling, at
least for me. Why can't you define safe curves which don't require buying
a license from Certicom? Or at least do what Entrust did with their PKIX
patent (provide a world-wide, royalty-free license)?

  Dan.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 09:55:04 EST you wrote
> 
> Yes, there is an existing draft for EC groups labed #6, 7, 8, 9 - draft-ietf-
>ipsec-ike-ecc-groups-01.txt
> Dan, the above draft has been available for a while, and if there are no comm
>ents,
> we should proceed to publishing it as an RFC, or include the groups
> (along with the new proposed DH groups) in the next IKE draft.
> What does everyone else think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yuri Poeluev
> Certicom Corp.
> 


References: