Re: [Cfrg] Brazil Curves -> Re: Safecurves draft redux

"Dan Harkins" <> Mon, 20 January 2014 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4C41A022B for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:59:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.167
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVGomowDd2e9 for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A221A0259 for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C253110224008; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:59:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Dan Harkins" <>
To: "Watson Ladd" <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Brazil Curves -> Re: Safecurves draft redux
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:59:38 -0000

On Mon, January 20, 2014 2:28 pm, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Paul Lambert <> wrote:
>> More of the curves seem appear to have come from Brazil (not necessarily
>> the movie) than Chicago.
>> There was a thread on clear naming conventions that has some consensus
>> that did not add confusion by creating cute names.  Could we please
>> proceed with a consensus based draft.
> Naming them E or M then prime description would work. We would also need a
> T. So far I've resisted renaming from the SAFECURVES names, but that
> will change since
> we need to invent some.
> As for naming the whole set, that's where Chicago comes in. Brainpool
> is certainly not
> a cute name, but I doubt the mental images were in the naming process.
> We aren't even at a point where I have something I would sent to Last
> Call. I have
> some edits to make (see TE25519 discussion where I screwed it up),
> and with the start
> of the semester haven't had time to do this yet.

  You seem to think that the next step is Last Call. Please peruse the
RFC database and note the revision of the last draft prior to publication
as an RFC. You'll find many that have double-digit revisions. And you'll
note that very few have an -01 revision.

  It is very helpful in this consensus-based development process to
produce a draft for everyone to read that incorporates a slew of
comments you received. That way we can see how it reads after the
comments were resolved and possibly suggest how to further improve
it, resulting in another version. Holding on to a draft until you personally
feel that it is ready for Last Call is likely to blow up in your face.

  If you want this published in an I{E|R}TF stream then please follow
the process for working on a draft. Github is not an appropriate