Subject: RE: Do people have something against RSA?

From: Michael Zolotarev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:38:51 +1000

> Get real!  The whole world uses RSA.  The future worldwide 
> PKI will run on
> RSA.  I have never seen a certificate signed with an 
> algorithm other than
> RSA and containing anything other than an RSA public key.  

Here is one for you, Christopher. It contains a DSA key. If you insist, I
can generate a *real* certificate for you. And I can sign it with a DSA key.

Having fun?

Michael :)

---

From: Paul Halliden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:32:12 +0100

>2. In other countries (like in the UK), I think that RSA is 
>patented. What is the case in those countries? 

RSA is not patented in the UK or, to the best of my knowledge, in any other
European country.  However, I understand that there is a claim that DSA may
covered by a European patent.  In the US, I believe that the Federal
authorities provide indemnity to vendors using DSA in products supplied to
the government - but I have not heard of that happening elsewhere. 

Regards
Paul Halliden

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:41:24 (NZST)

"Christopher Williams" <[email-masked]>

>Can we please start mandating RSA in future?  It will make implementing
>standards much easier and remove the FUD because I haven't incorporated
>support for Diffie-Hellman!

Calm down, calm down, it's not that bad.  The way it works is that everyone
pretends to do DSA+DH until September, then stops pretending on the 20th.  The
"shall DSA, may RSA" wording of the standards is a bit confusing at first, but
it all works out in the long run.

(You're new to this, right? :-).

Peter.

---

From: Philip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:18:37 -0700

Summary:

Unless we modify the drafts to rip out the mandatory DH but optional
RSA the PKIX and SMIME specs will inevitably end up being recycled
at DRAFT stage since otherwise our spec will not correspond to 
reality.

While we are at it a good purge of all lossage related to 40bit
ciphers is needed.

On the patent issue, yes I do begrudge folk a return on their IP. I
have yet to see anyone go out and hand me (or CERN) a cheque for the 
IP we put in the public domain. The fact is that in most cases a
patent is the kiss of death as far as I am concerned. If you patent
something it means that I have to talk to our lawyers if I want to
use it in a design. It is usually easier to work out another way 
to do the same thing - as some folk on this list have discovered.

I don't have a problem in the case that someone genuinely invented
something worthwhile. In most cases however I'm reading claims written
by some weasel that developed a better mousetrap and is claiming
the idea of catching all forms of vermin for purposes of disposal
(excluding weasels).

When I was at MIT one of the Profs made certain patent claims which
had they been made in an academic paper would have been considered
plagarism. I have noted a distinct decline in said profs patent 
prolixity since I made my position clear (and no it isn't anyone the
folk in this group is likely to know - unless they spend time reading
bogus patent claims).

The fact that DH expired two years ago and will not expire till the
end of the month after the next IETF does not appear to me to be 
a sufficient reason to absolutely reject RSA until the second hand
reaches the top of the hour ushering in October 1.

When the argument is that we all need one default algorithm to permit
interoperation it aoccurs to me that ignoring the 100 odd million
installations already shipped is ridiculous. They do RSA, they don't
do DH, it will be five years at least before that installed base will
cease to be a constraint - end of story.

		Phill

---

From: Philip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:25:09 -0700

>OpenPGP *is* and IETF standard. It has the same standards level as 
>S/MIME and PKIX does. You may not use it, and your company may not 
>sell it, but please stop pretending it is not an IETF standard.

Paul as a matter of FACT, PGP is NOT an IETF standard. There are in 
fact practically no IETF standards. IP and TCP being some of the few
exceptions. SMTP is a standard but HTTP still is not.

PGP is currently a proposed standard. Recognition as an actual standard
is far from certain and depends in part upon market acceptance.

The status of market acceptance of PGP and PKIX is NOT equivalent in
any degree.

In addition X.509v3 of which PKIX is a profile IS a standard recognised
by the International Standards Organization.

It is thus not a 'pretense' to claim PGP is not an IETF standard.
X.509v3
is however a longstanding ISO standard that the IETF has already
incorporated into widely deployed standards proposals.

		Phill

---

From: Philip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:17:47 -0700

I agree with Ben, burn down the PTO. Patents are in any case a sixteenth
century method of supporting innovation. To equate them with
'capitalism' is ridiculous.

Since when was appealing to the government to grant you a twenty year
monopoly an intrinsic part of free market competition?

The problem is that the US PTO is systematically incompetent. The lack
of prior public review utterly compromises the patents issued. No other
country has such a ridiculous scheme.

The lack of public review is doubly iniquitous. It should be possible
for me to determine through due dilligence what IP claims might impinge
upon a proposed product. The closed review permits the 'submarine
patent' strategy. Keep the patent in process for ten years and rewrite
it after the standards have been set.

The poor standard of review at the US PTO hurts genuine applicants too.
Hold up a US PTO patent and you don't have half the credibility you have
with a UK, French or German one. 

Anyone here believe Unisys deserve a patent royalty on Compuserve's Gif
format? Compuserve were entirely unaware that their standard might
infringe. Had they known that Unisys had a patent they could easily have
avoided the specific inventions claimed.

Has anyone considered that a person making a bogus patent application
might be held liable under a private suit for conversion in fraud?

	Phill

---

From: Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:42:07 -0700

I have to agree with Phillip and Ben as well.

The USPTO seems way-behind the times when it comes to "software"
and "web" inventions.  If you were the lucky one to first think of
the idea of coordinating web auctions (eBay) you just about have
the market sewn up.  Just try to start your own such service if
you want to know what an army of lawyers looks like.  They (PTO)
seem to think anything transferred to "the web" = "new invention".

At minimum, I would like to see such "patents" awarded for at most
a one-year period (i.e., adjusted to "cyber-time".)  With an adequate
review, that should give patent-holders time to leverage their IP
into a market advantage.  But if all they can produce with their
one-year head start are lawsuits, "times up".

___tony___

>might be held liable under a private suit for conversion in fraud?

Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <[email-masked]>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900