Re: [Cfrg] Chopping out curves

[Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <[e-mail]>]

On 17/01/2014 20:01, Watson Ladd wrote:
> Okay. I'll follow the Ed25519 paper and call it te25519 and add the
> paper as a reference.
> Are rationals fine, or do people want me to write big numbers?

I'm sorry, but I'd prefer big numbers (or best, both). Of course it's more work
for you, but it's less for the readers. And since the document will hopefully be
read more often than it is written... :)

Unrelated, but Alyssa wrote:
>> • But if we call it 'Ed25519', people might confuse it with the whole
>>   Ed25519 signature scheme.
>> 
With all the respect I have for the great work done by Bernstein on this, I find
it unfortunate that the same name is used for a curve, a particular protocol
using this curve (and often even "the" implementation), causing some confusion.
I'll be really glad if the I{R,E}TF encourages more distinct names for curves
and protocols (and of course, many distinct interoperable implementations as usual).

Manuel.