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

If it's not too late, I'd like to "update" my vote from the previous round.
I think this is effectively how you might interpret it anyway, but I can
perhaps state it more clearly:

448 - Preferred
480 - No
521 - Accept

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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")
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
Tony Arcieri