Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 as a RG document

Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org> Mon, 05 January 2015 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <alangley@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 CA9A21A8966 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 12:02:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 stKY_Pq39y3u for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 12:02:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2512C1A89F0 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p9so18611920lbv.28 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:49:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7Z6kuDWGzzLAlwT9OTlgcD4kzwcAblUOlOm3xt5EfhQ=; b=uBkdC3Jw2hfmfU4TegLI6IhNv7wd4Ii5Vr/y6ZFVwXhkwWgbdfOydbOZFAmlb5ttOq WkTExvXomC13gQvv87p4LNrmMFz1iFvMn9k9BRvsVBqolkKUDQDtTIlXDj5dPqn/qhXi uN/K9Dkco4Youn2FqhL/Y55B5iLC5BmtjwD0ZjJCNtAGxODKLWlnolIPrm+Wm5U9N9en IZASfxeqvsM7oXEK7vq7b4wy2khRT0kl6ObGRx+y5loAmenRor/1BNlH1dKChmPZ5t6h Oi28VDdozz3RaYseZFU6pKcxFnn/Ml2RDqzeRXD06Kg2QcFKCW476xmlcZrqc59Gayeb dkTA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.163.167 with SMTP id yj7mr47831607lbb.96.1420487387329; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Sender: alangley@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.114.225 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:49:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54AAE2CA.1080701@isode.com>
References: <54AAE2CA.1080701@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:49:47 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: s5Py4ThiXzR7MkSebWQRdL4MEl4
Message-ID: <CAMfhd9Vk8X55jbddsh_Dz9gc=qC3NqM5-EiUi7LakjdrziX0Sg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/QW_h6UDbzmaHTEia2I7paEuYe4Y
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 as a RG document
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: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:02:32 -0000

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> whether you want a particular change be made to the
> document before adoption.

The structure of the current draft anticipates an additional curve and
also signature work so I'd like to point out a couple of changes to
save others having to do so:

1) If no other curves end up being recommended, then the current
generation process is overly complicated and could well be replaced
with a description that mirrors how curve25519 was actually chosen:
i.e. that the minimal sensible A value in Montgomery form be chosen.
It really depends on how important a generic procedure is seen to be.

2) The procedure for generating base points is currently unused and,
if change (1) is done, it could be tweaked to reflect how the
curve25519 base point was generated.

3) If we don't end up saying anything about signatures, all mention of
Edwards curves could conceivably be dropped.

Not to mention that several sections should be greatly expanded upon,
clarified etc. I think such changes can be considered as a given.


To contrast, if you desire changes like "a different curve should be
recommended" then I think that translates to not supporting adoption.


Cheers

AGL

-- 
Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org https://www.imperialviolet.org