I don't know this area well - but it looks to me as if this should be merged into identity based encryption now. Charles Matthews 21:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to verify that there's no copyright problems first :( — Matt Crypto 22:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oddly I did test the other page, but Google failed to be my friend. Charles Matthews 08:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that IBE is mostly a public key system, there are symmetric key variants such as tripartite Diffie-Hellman (Joux 2004), etc. Should these be included or would they just confuse the article? 79.70.97.125 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called advantage, "if there are only a finite number of users, after all users have been issued with keys the third party's secret can be destroyed" seems more like a mitigation of the drawback that the PKG has all the private keys rather than an actual advantage. 87.253.81.146 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sakai Kasahara

Does Sakai Kasahara algorithm must be mentioned here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.239.184 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing ownership of long lived identifiers

Does anyone know if any of the current IBE schemes can remap some_id@yahoo.com from one person to another? Benjamin Gittins (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms to revoke private keys are not usually mentioned when IBE schemes are described.

In practise, master keys are only valid during a certain amount of time. Private keys need to be issued for each block of time. This effectively provides the ability to revoke of private keys in the instance you describe. Skippydo (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]