Re: [Cfrg] Outline -> was Re: normative references

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:15 AM, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>
 wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Paul Lambert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Watson,
>> 
>>>> I’ve been trying to be helpful, but your arguments against well intended
>>>> suggestions is frustrating.   It’s difficult to contribute if you’re
>>>> arguing for a sloppy RFC because the code is the reference.
>>> 
>>> I'm arguing for a precise statement of what needs to be calculated,
>>> and nothing else.
>> 
>> Likewise … but precision of math is not the same as precision of
>> protocol interoperability.
> 
> If we merely needed to define the protocol to be interoperable, then
> "big endian x coordinate of points on y^2=x^3+486662x^2+x over
> GF(2^255-19) with Diffie-Hellman packed to 32 bytes with leading 0,
> basepoint x coordinate 9" would
> completely define the protocol.

And just to be on the safe side, it's best to also add a numerical example: an x and y in numerical form and then encoded as on the network.

We usually craft RFCs so as to be understandable to implementers in general, which could be fresh comp-sci or software engineering graduates who have never taken a cryptography course, and who have never programmed in a low enough level to consider endianness. No, you don't have to explain asymmetric crypto - they can look it up, but you should not assume any deeper knowledge than there is in the relevant wikipedia article.

That should be the assumption for a crypto document. Consider yourself lucky. Some documents need to be understood by the "teach yourself Javascript in 21 days" crowd.

Yoav