Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST"

["Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, February 28, 2015 9:17 am, Watson Ladd wrote:
> The reality is lots of new designs are using Curve25519 and Ed25519.
> That's because of factors like simple design of APIs, high
> performance, and very good security. Standards body acceptance is not
> a concern here. Just as the reality is that E-521 was picked by
> Brazil, while the new GOST is still being worked on, and the upper
> size limit is just a random number. But never mind reality: we've got
> to expose "signs of strength". We need big numbers for marketing:
> never mind attackers can't break authentication in the future, while
> mobile devices already struggle to validate certificates. We need to
> vote on endianness: nothing more needs to be said.

  Don't change things for trivial reasons, or no reason at all, and
there won't be a need to vote on them.

> Is anyone surprised we've become a punchline?

  To quote Tonto: what do you mean "we" white man?

  Dan.