Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves - preferred curves around 256bit work factor (ends on March 3rd)

What happened to the earlier, vigorous arguments by Robert Ransom, Alyssa
Rowan and Mike Hamburg that Goldilocks448, and perhaps all of the curves
based on large primes, would be covered by Microsoft IP?

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
wrote:

> On 25/02/2015 14:27, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
>> CFRG chairs are starting another poll:
>>
>> Q3: This is a Quaker poll (please answer one of "preferred", "acceptable"
>> or "no") for each curve specified below:
>>
>> 1) 448 (Goldilocks)
>> 2) 480
>> 3) 521
>> 4) other curve (please name another curve that you "prefer" or "accept",
>> or state "no")
>>
> Thank you for all responses.
>
> 521 - 6 preferred, 14 - acceptable
> 448 - 16 preferred, 4 - acceptable
>
> Very few prefer others (512 NUMS, 480).
>
> So CFRG prefers curve 448.
>
>>
>> If you stated your curve preferences in the poll that ended on February
>> 23rd (see the attachment), you don't need to reply to this poll, your
>> opinion is already recorded. But please double check what chairs recorded
>> (see the attachment).
>>
>> If you changed your mind or only answered the question about performance
>> versa memory usage for curves 512 and 521, feel free to reply.
>>
>> Once this issues is settled, we will be discussing (in no particular
>> order. Chairs reserve the right to add additional questions) implementation
>> specifics and coordinate systems for Diffie-Hellman. We will then make
>> decisions on signature schemes. Please don't discuss any of these future
>> topics at this time.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>