Re: [CFRG] Second RGLC on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:43 AM Yumi Sakemi <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear Rene and Watson
>
> I'm so sorry for my late reply.
> Thank you for your comments.
> I checked and discussed with my co-authors about comments from Rene and Watson.
> As a result, we came up with the idea that the position of our I-D
> might be different from what Rene and Watson commented on our I-D.
> Below are the stances we understand when making comments from Rene and
> Watson and the positions/stances of our I-D.
>
> - Rene's stance
> It is the point of view that the I-D should be for educational
> purposes regarding pairing.
> For example, the quality of the I-D is inadequate for a textbook and
> inappropriate for an IRTF draft.
>
> - Watson's stance
>  Standardization of pairing implementation.
>  For example, there is a lack of detailed explanation of the
> implementation method in the I-D.
>
> To be clarified by Prof. Colin and Stanislav in the 2nd RGLC, the
> stance of our activities is to make an informational RFC
> about “secure parameters of pairing-friendly curves” promoting Secure
> Pairing Cryptography on the Internet.

What does it take to actually achieve this goal?
- Agreement on a few commonly used parameters
- Descriptions of how to represent them
- Descriptions of the algorithms to achieve the result

Ala RFC 6090, SEC1, RFC7748 etc.

This draft has none of that material. It has lots of irrelevant
material that's not really appropriate for an RFC. How does a protocol
designer use this draft to inform implementors what to do? Until you
can answer that I don't think the answer is worth publishing, because
it doesn't make it easier for protocol designers to use as a
reference.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd

--
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim