IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft

Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> Thu, 09 January 2014 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@marvell.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21431AE593 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKCgstfs-6ti for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.148.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC3C1AE54D for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s09K1GFZ016515; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:01:16 -0800
Received: from sc-owa01.marvell.com ([199.233.58.136]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1h9ybegmaw-5 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:01:16 -0800
Received: from SC-vEXCH2.marvell.com ([10.93.76.134]) by SC-OWA01.marvell.com ([10.93.76.21]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:01:15 -0800
From: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, Mike Hamburg <mike@shiftleft.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:01:15 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft
Thread-Index: Ac8NdY3BHZjFGgwQQgy5eWHeFIOjag==
Message-ID: <CEF43F31.2BF71%paul@marvell.com>
References: <20140109031144.6111382.52184.8264@certicom.com> <20140109094731.GA12327@netbook.cypherspace.org> <CADMpkc+giuSZgrYmusRJmj5SyN9Dcu_Mdaqx5KQPyXGMmosFUw@mail.gmail.com> <CABqy+soXxjY+fEzpHP+_yn9Y1Xtapm_9OWbgDcA_J_Lukz_YLw@mail.gmail.com> <CADMpkcJFk2C5DPQX9RVWphUH25atsUX2vPA7RwNf8zbmR6dXJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABqy+soX0xVWG0+vJs-_7O1Ur_hkDW0u0acCGZYrrtEci5QRXw@mail.gmail.com> <CADMpkcKptQrtXyaarkXiMpRyGmobEcywbTeTkkcb6uWB-yttwg@mail.gmail.com> <B29AD107-69D0-4EF5-9D5B-137C1E333AEA@shiftleft.org> <CACsn0ckufy9jfOXcMDA7WE+SzZUuuibucod8CkQeACnQam63-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ckufy9jfOXcMDA7WE+SzZUuuibucod8CkQeACnQam63-w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-01-09_07:2014-01-08, 2014-01-09, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1401090131
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 20:01:27 -0000

>> I agree.  The sender might well use Edwards internally -- it's about 3x
>> faster -- but the point should be sent in Montgomery form.
Totally undefined in the draft.  Critical for interoperability.


>
>This draft doesn't specify an encoding: it's up to whichever standard
>uses this draft
>to pick one.
Wrong answer Š  we need interoperability of public key representation
Since a key may be used in multiple applications.


Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email