Both gave speeches about the history of their research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTGqP0nxX08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BJuuUxCaaY
Merkle had a huge influence also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Merkle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTGqP0nxX08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BJuuUxCaaY
Merkle had a huge influence also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Merkle
http://www.merkle.com/1974/RejectionLetter.pdf
"I had failed to provide any references to the prior work on public key cryptography, and the reasons previous workers in the field had rejected it as impossible. I should have looked up "public key cryptography" on Google before submitting my paper. My defense is feeble: there was no Google, the term "public key cryptography" did not yet exist, and there were no previous workers in the field. There were no words for what I had done, and looking up a concept to show that no one had previously thought of it is difficult. This is not a unique problem: it illustrates a problem faced by anyone trying to explain a new idea to an "expert" who expects a properly referenced article anytime anyone tries to explain something to them. The more a new idea is unrelated to any prior idea or concept the more it must appear as a squawling bastard, naked and alone, appearing de novo and lacking any respectable pedigree or family to vouch for its acceptability."