Talk:International Data Encryption Algorithm

Cryptography: Computer science Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

Template:CryptographyReader

It's late and I'm tired, but this article lacks information on (a) the input/output transformation stage, and (b) the subkey generator. →Raul654 03:19, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

True, but they aren't very interesting... Matt 03:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll add them to the to-do list anyway. — Matt 23:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added an image showing the transformation round. danielap48 02:04, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

patents

The article says "IDEA is patented in Austria, France, Germany...". you cannot patent software (or any other algorithms) in germany....

Image format

Erk, it looks very ugly with a grey border around it; is there any reason you wanted it 200px and not 250px?

— Matt 20:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The manual of style says not to use HTML-formatted pictures like that - it's depricated since we got the wiki image markup language. If you don't want the grey border, then simply remove the "thumbnail" switch. However, doing that removes the caption. Tell you what - read Wikipedia:Picture tutorial (I wrote it :D) and tell me what format you would prefer. →Raul654 20:51, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Is there no way to have no border AND a caption? — Matt 20:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Only with html tables, and we generally discourage that. If you do it with no thumbnailing (no grey border), then the caption shows up if you hover the mouse over the picture. →Raul654 20:55, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, that's unfortunate; I've flicked between the versions, and it does look quite a bit uglier (IMO) with the thumbnail box, but really could do with the caption rather than be a bare image. Could we just leave it as is for now? I'm all in favour of removing nasty HTML stuff from wikitext, but it might still be best for treating floating white-background diagram-type things ... — Matt 21:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It does look a lot nicer in the new skin! — Matt 11:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

Can someone please edit the image to make it clear when paths cross over, perhaps with the little bridges seen on wiring diagrams? Pimantony 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Key Schedule description

The key schedule is incorrectly described. The 25 bit left rotate is not applied to the 128 bit key until after the full 128 bits are used in the key. This happens in the middle of the second round (96 bits are used for the first round, the remaining 32 bits are used in the second round.) The rotate left operation is only performed a total of 6 times in the key schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.134.34 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

The IDEA applet link does not appear too useful, not in English and I saw no way to run a simulation.--Billymac00 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa kabhi mat padhna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.207.148 (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patent expiration date

The term of patent in the United States has been questioned by Fgrieu (talk), so I'd like to collect discussion here. Because the patent was filed prior to June 8, 1995, when the patent term rules changed, its term is the longer of the two rules:

(Old rule) 17 years from date of issue. May 25, 1993 + 17 years = May 25, 2010.
(New rule) 20 years from date of filing. (35 U.S.C. § 154(a)) But the date of filing includes, in some cases, priority dates based on international patent applications (see Patent Cooperation Treaty).

Before Fgrieu's edits, the date of U.S. filing (1992-01-07) was used, but he rightly points out that an earlier date might actually apply. I'm just not sure which one.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One option for the priority date is the date of issue of the Swiss patent (1990-05-18), which would place the 20-year expiration on 2010-05-18, slightly before the "old rule" date.

A second option would be the 1991-05-16 date listed on the USPTO Patent Information server (cookies & captcha required to use) under the "Foreign Priority" tab for the United States. That would place expiration on 2011-05-16, a few days ago.

It all has to do with which subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 365 applies. § 154(a)(2) says that a date from § 365(c) does apply, but § 154(a)(2) says that a date from § 365(a) or (b) does not. I don't really understand this designation thing. Does someone else? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, based on talk with a real patent lawyer about another case, is that the "foreign priority" section of the USPTO records contains precisely which foreign applications have been designated by the applicant as giving the benefit of an earlier priority date, which filing date(s) serves (under the current rules) as the reference for the 20 years protection period. That benefit, I was told, is avoidance of self-anteriority. Could this be an oversimplification, and could a foreign application be in "foreign priority" with no effect on the 20 years protection period?Fgrieu (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]