Re: [Cfrg] Chopping out curves

Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> Fri, 17 January 2014 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
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 F23531A1F5B for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:14:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 hBKV6KFzCA6E for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:14:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676881A1F33 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:14:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netbook (c107-70.i07-27.onvol.net [92.251.107.70]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LaGNq-1VcvRr26hy-00lt8m; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:14:27 -0500
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 53E652E283F; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:14:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:14:14 +0100
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:14:14 +0100
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140117011414.GA3413@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <CACsn0cmJX2begH0q8vOUZhP2t3CFo_2Ad71Neke4EKejoYCPRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGZ8ZG1qF4ba3ogjHQnMwgXV+0Fj7eR44QdvuSw3GYBvNVFZBA@mail.gmail.com> <c406386b6fc67d11332141423f2f0f40.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <CACsn0c=Eh1J81JHq=u8WsTtVK4HAJDghyisTZnM6U61jdr2KUQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0c=Eh1J81JHq=u8WsTtVK4HAJDghyisTZnM6U61jdr2KUQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140117:watsonbladd@gmail.com::4863Q0R7l92sjDXi:0000000000000000 0000000000000000000000003t2x
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140117:dharkins@lounge.org::FXa9uhZKEaGaA/JA:000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000086Qq
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140117:trevp@trevp.net::lJT7q6F8+pGH6Lil:00JeIC
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140117:cfrg@irtf.org::5QBoSRC2qG6aEDuC:00000BZk
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140117:adam@cypherspace.org::SOtzUVCidGLhPigC:00000000000000000 00000000000000000000000003eW
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:B1Qz6xaJpsAbW82+9aJ/3Y7uFvZZ+WLr0xPlC55FGhW fMgBPkY0EHrHNq4ayoPs320s71efVu4A0q6X9zkCDgZBB5/z2w WJlTelxEKe2PXWd/EffEyUext7fMlyx3wpAiBW67NQvvteh7uv P/3dDfYIIGSnGvi5In9Z2hKyiLfx3olwh+7j+AOwZXBAv5yDnC U8ptF254Fs9Q2UQO1s6mXodySUr+84GxXTP5qdNQUptieQOn8m 0XF5thaiApBORzFnPdTaeksO5Or1tuts72YnZRsj/ItGiY5nVj LEMHpaD10dkUFyYgluB4RSphsBxvAsHRk6SMJKPY82Ytn2DSsE w0Pvk28LJnKAIGcAYjiHZj7VT5LSzs/20q9X8o0It
Cc: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Chopping out curves
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:14:45 -0000

Woulnt it make more sense to use two safe curve curves as they seem to be
what people are using and better tested/reviewed (re goldilocks).

Adam

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 02:36:24PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, January 16, 2014 1:50 pm, Trevor Perrin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> Trevor Perrin suggests that we only put in Curve25519/T25519 and
>>>> E383/M382 so implementors can focus on 4 curves ala Suite B. Are there
>>>> any protocols in which larger curves would be useful? Anything we
>>>> might be missing with this decision?
>>>
>>> I didn't quite suggest that.
>>>
>>> I do feel there should be fewer curves.  Perhaps only curve25519 and
>>> (either Curve3617 or Ed448-Goldilocks).
>>>