1993-09-21 - Re: Why RSA?

Header Data

From: khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp)
To: pmetzger@lehman.com
Message Hash: 0efa778eecd2862fb91311dfb7e8f071c2152dbd6a20584d95d6b298e67a58df
Message ID: <m0ofEbN-00021tC@khijol>
Reply To: <9309211943.AA22383@snark.lehman.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-09-21 20:56:35 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 13:56:35 PDT

Raw message

From: khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 13:56:35 PDT
To: pmetzger@lehman.com
Subject: Re: Why RSA?
In-Reply-To: <9309211943.AA22383@snark.lehman.com>
Message-ID: <m0ofEbN-00021tC@khijol>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

> Derek Zahn says:
> > 
> > Is there some reason that we shouldn't pick a different
> > public key encryption algorithm than RSA to use as a
> > freely-available standard?  The PGP docs imply that "almost"
> > all practical such schemes are patented, implying that
> > some are not.
> All are patented in so far as one of the patents covers ALL public key
> schemes. Some, like Rabin's scheme, have possible technical advantages
> over RSA.

How about that public key scheme they came up with in Australia a while
back?  And why should RSA's patent be so construed as to cover ALL public
key schemes?  Because Jim Bidzos says so?
Ed Carp, N7EKG			erc@apple.com			510/659-9560
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"