Re: Algorithm Selections

At 15:07 11/27/2000 -0500, Simon Blake-Wilson wrote:
>I'd like to suggest including ECC as an option ... either ECDH key 
>agreement or
>ECIES key transport.

Hi Simon. I've represented this in the requirements document [1] as options 
that can be considered by the WG.

>  My reasons:
>- ECC offers favourable performance compared to RSA in constrained 
>like wireless ... particularly for private key operations like decryption.
>- In general it seems sensible to standardize a reasonable selection of
>algorithms to mitigate against the potential that some algorithms will be

In the XML context, our goal is quick/easy interop by specifying an absolute 
minimum that takes advantage of likely/exiting deployment, no IPR problems, 
and a minimal amount of work that we'd have to co-opt with respect to 
providing identifiers and keywraps. (Like xmldsig, the only requirement is 
for a simple DSAKeyValue. Everything else could have been skipped). Anything 
else must be specified under an external algorithm-identifier and namespace.

>Of course, there are patent issues with ECC, but I don't think this should 
>be a
>reason to exclude optional ECC. Plus I think all the parties involved 
>the party I work for) are fairly accustomed to committing to the usual
>'reasonable and non-discriminatory' terms that standards bodies' policies
>typically request.

Please, note that this WG will likely work under a more unencumbered IPR 
policy than is typical [2].


"... Any intellectual property essential to implement specifications 
produced by this Activity must be at least available for licensing on a 
royalty-free basis..."

Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst      
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair

Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 16:55:13 UTC