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

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Thu, 05 March 2015 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.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 549DD1A9073 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:41:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_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 EGTfLGf-x0e3 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yh0-x234.google.com (mail-yh0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A1771A897A for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yhoa41 with SMTP id a41so27569343yho.9 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:41:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BQ6j5j/e5arKRD4IP4E2i3KI2XsrPUv17NNIJZjEZqg=; b=Ln9/rJxWaqidvGwvs/dpQs2fcnIgi0p2vWoL2g1/e0WW9aMXI3yAm+Pk3fsA0df7EJ tMgf2xhN84h7UcI50IK3v75V1OUHp3T5TGu9Inpw7zGJZDhI/JStg7t7Ppp/YS4aZhMX qZBbz5q4fkQ+0+PcOoRWdPaAl9KlMZGKKdI0dN5lrczTi6jg6uT5ksbm0KIA2wymiExV D58u9pEt3JC+fEz6D25CFz5tdjn9VgGCeqXKm09AYx2Hx/C2SUhAcBEKQqmmkAOSh8yp HV2B/APLPkeb8MBrwHC044MMZyU8RzIDpUQHSTqc+D+yulr/CCJhly9dbagBHzINxHoe ru+w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.56.215 with SMTP id 206mr11088992yky.34.1425598861461; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.58.198 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.58.198 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:41:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Vbu7y-6ocP9yPrYYVmSGyboHQvLzQFonzkejwE4jxOs0ww6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54EDDBEE.5060904@isode.com> <54F8E2B1.80304@isode.com> <CA+Vbu7y-6ocP9yPrYYVmSGyboHQvLzQFonzkejwE4jxOs0ww6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:41:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmEAdUos4B754C-wS7GZKywK0cncHr=uH=OV3EVP53tFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11397c48bacd8905109319a8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/NBax_iEQEKAoXw0OytTJGL_nog4>
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves - preferred curves around 256bit work factor (ends on March 3rd)
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, 05 Mar 2015 23:41:04 -0000

On Mar 5, 2015 3:23 PM, "Benjamin Black" <b@b3k.us> wrote:
>
> 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?

Were these the arguments made? Or was it that the particular algorithms
discussed by Microsoft in March were patented?

I don't recall any argument of the first form. Perhaps you can provide a
link to am email, or a patent number. But I do recall the second.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
>Cfrg@irtf.org
>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>