Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 as a RG document

Is there any particular need to choose between minimal A and minimal d? Why
not simply specify that both are acceptable options?

This is a minuscule loss to rigidity; two curves versus one per prime.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Alexey Melnikov <
> alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>
>> This message starts 2 weeks adoption call (ending on January 19th 2015)
>> on:
>>
>> https://www.imperialviolet.org/cfrgcurve/cfrgcurve.xml
>>
>> as the starting point for the CFRG document which describes an algorithm
>> for safe curve parameter generation for a particular security level and
>> also recommends a specific curve (2^255-19) for the 128-bit security level.
>>
>> Please reply to this message or directly to CFRG chairs, stating whether
>> you support (or not) adoption of this document. If you do not support
>> adoption of this document, please state whether you support adoption of any
>> alternative document or whether you want a particular change be made to the
>> document before adoption.
>
>
> My support of this document is contextual: at present it does not provide
> a similar defense for Ed25519 (despite the rigid curve selection guidelines
> dealing primarily in Edwards curves) as it does for Curve25519 (which is
> Montgomery)
>
> I hope the CFRG does not paint itself into a corner with this document,
> and when the question of a signature system arises, I hope Ed25519 will not
> be struck down due to an incompatibility with the outlined rigid curve
> selection guidelines.
>
> I'm not saying the CFRG should adopt Ed25519, but I would prefer the door
> remained open for them to do so.
>
> tl;dr: I would accept this draft so long as it's not a blocker for Ed25519
>
> --
> Tony Arcieri
>  _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>