MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:10:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHOTMV+xQV6uqp-tB1Hs8xry5L+od=UW7RgtRYY-Lte4SGwxHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141745af759b7050c40443b
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/3Tf6s8h1eAnxb1dccfzDqchOOf4>
Subject: [Cfrg] Is draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 incompatible with Ed25519?
Precedence: list

--001a1141745af759b7050c40443b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It would be good to get a definitive answer on this question before
draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 adopted (which I'm guessing is likely to happen)

For clarity: I like draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 and I hope it does get adopted.
I would simply like the CFRG to have the option to adopt Ed25519 in the
future. I am not necessarily saying the CFRG *should* adopt Ed25519
wholesale. However I would like for the CFRG to specifically address this
question in advance in anticipation of it coming up in the future.

If Ed25519 is incompatible with draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00, I would suggest
that drafg-agl-cfrgcurve-00 be specifically amended to include the
possibility of using Ed25519 for signatures in the future.

Ed25519 is already being deployed in SSH and OpenPGP contexts, so I hope
the CFRG would not accidentally rule it out in the name of "compromise".
Having similar-but-incompatible Edwards curves used in different protocol
contexts sounds like a recipe for disaster.

--
Tony Arcieri

--001a1141745af759b7050c40443b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">It would be good to get a definitive answer on this questi=
on before draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 adopted (which I&#39;m guessing is likely =
to happen)<div><br></div><div>For clarity: I like=C2=A0draft-agl-cfrgcurve-=
00 and I hope it does get adopted. I would simply like the CFRG to have the=
 option to adopt Ed25519 in the future. I am not necessarily saying the CFR=
G *should* adopt Ed25519 wholesale. However I would like for the CFRG to sp=
ecifically address this question in advance in anticipation of it coming up=
 in the future.<div><br></div><div>If Ed25519 is incompatible with draft-ag=
l-cfrgcurve-00, I would suggest that drafg-agl-cfrgcurve-00 be specifically=
 amended to include the possibility of using Ed25519 for signatures in the =
future.<br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div><div>Ed25519 is already being deplo=
yed in SSH and OpenPGP contexts, so I hope the CFRG would not accidentally =
rule it out in the name of &quot;compromise&quot;. Having similar-but-incom=
patible Edwards curves used in different protocol contexts sounds like a re=
cipe for disaster.</div><div><br></div>--<br><div class=3D"gmail_signature"=
>Tony Arcieri<br></div>
</div></div></div>

--001a1141745af759b7050c40443b--