Re: [P1363:] HIBE Scheme
> > I agree that we should add one pairing to the efficiency of GS-HIBE
> > that
> > I stated. However, GS-HIBE is as efficient as BBG/BB-HIBE, and is not
> > worse when t is small.
>
> No, it's not; it's less efficient, even for t=1.
My claim is that GS-HIBE is more efficient under some environments. For
example, BBG-HIBE scheme requires more number of pairings than GS-HIBE
in decryption when t is small. If the smaller number of pairings in
decryption is the dominant factor of the efficiency of a system, then
GS-HIBE is more efficient. All we can say is that BB/BBG-HIBE can be
more efficient than GS-HIBE under some environments, as well as GS-HIBE
can be under others.
I think there is no significant flaw in the GS-HIBE scheme that makes us
exclude it from this working draft.
> On May 27, 2009, at 2:11 AM, kobayashi.tetsutaro wrote:
>
> > Please notice that I am just proposing an HIBE schme, and not making
> > objection to proposing BBG/BB-HIBE.
>
> Well, I am, to GS; unless there's a legacy need to standardize GS --
> that is, if someone is actually using it -- then I believe it should
> not be offered as an option.
>
> > I agree that we should add one pairing to the efficiency of GS-HIBE
> > that
> > I stated. However, GS-HIBE is as efficient as BBG/BB-HIBE, and is not
> > worse when t is small.
>
> No, it's not; it's less efficient, even for t=1.
>
> -hs.
>
--
Kobayashi Tetsutaro <kobayashi.tetsutaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
TEL: 0422-59-3462 FAX: 0422-59-4015
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, mail LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the body of the message containing: SIGNOFF STDS-P1363-DISCUSS
Send any concerns to STDS-P1363-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
or manage subscriptions at http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa
Visit IEEE P1363 on the web at: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363
______________________________________________________________________