Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[P1619-1] IEEE RevCom approves P1619 and P1619.1



Thank you Shai for the clarification.  I remembered some such discussion, but forgot where it was!

I think this discussion is relevant to both P1619 and P1619.1 because both standards specify XTS, which in turn is based on XEX -- so I've copied both lists.

Cheers,
-Matt

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shai Halevi
Date: Dec 13, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [P1619-1] [STDS-P1619] IEEE RevCom approves P1619 and P1619.1


This matter was discussed and resolved long ago, as you can find in
the email archive, see in particular the message from Sep-28, 2006

  http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg01309.html

The bottom line: Phil did not claim any IP regarding XEX, nor does he
know of anyone else who might have such a claim.

Also please note that discussions of XEX/XTS should be carried out at
the 1619 mailing list, not the 1619.1 mailing list.

-- Shai

dtufs wrote:
> To ensure implementability of the standard, there have to be assurances
> at least from the designers of the mode. Has anyone asked Phillip
> Rogaway, the designer of the XEX mode, if he had patented his mode or if
> he intends to do so?
>
> Also, at http://ieee-p1619.wetpaint.com I found the following:
> "AI1 Shai: do a due diligence investigation on patents on XEX by talking
> to people that might have extra-USPTO info"
>
> What was the outcome of that investigation?
>
> Thank you.



--
Thanks!
Matt Ball
IEEE SISWG Chair
303-717-2717
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewvball