IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] should the CFRG really strive for consensus?

Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org> Wed, 31 December 2014 14:44 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 B86B11A8BBE for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:44:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 9vkdAdrCIf4w for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:44:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CD281A8AFE for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id s18so13935991lam.30 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:44:47 -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=khk+Qy84zM41kqFXqGdXM32fawUPilQvAOrfHe2dWHw=; b=aSH/rL/524O2w15UwDsTF32XYn+9i1mHGrEyaF/j2N/M3skGejo/tx9Rvkp6VkkSmN Tsy4TP87TAn/PsQJ51/DcJTXSJyFt6+91a+Q+l/DAaL4IC+V3QEXzW42BnqeyjU7P4GQ 1Fur7U+lrURrlMFhQvucV0wisn7ayQViXrjNQ8Cw0gpednzUnvHgfm0J2kPypd6zj7uK DisUdd464md3ElP6na6NK0AfAt2WkAWoblYCmOaHPehIVcEBw1a3QmyGD/85MudQjSbt P6GdwBvRpJ6XMP48z5cPWn15m5hGkkpnW0mFsjl9FIK1S1G6SLurdATQABzFG58ay6+a TNoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.23.38 with SMTP id j6mr67270058laf.81.1420037087579; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Sender: alangley@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.114.225 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:44:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.114.225 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:44:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1420033807.4638.16.camel@scientia.net>
References: <CAMfhd9V4tnjQL-orjTjX3KS=-XZRn0snAPrVwmP6pZH_20Cfgg@mail.gmail.com> <1420033807.4638.16.camel@scientia.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:44:46 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fpClu5FJU9s5hmr4NW6oJDDmelc
Message-ID: <CAMfhd9V5-Y60fGqCDfmCvk9+9bqm0zpm3kSHmR5_mzELZ2K+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
To: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160b6f02c54f3050b842691"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/QbP1BQhrWvCH0Blo8cep91OdlVQ
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] should the CFRG really strive for consensus?
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: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:44:55 -0000

On Dec 31, 2014 1:50 PM, "Christoph Anton Mitterer" <calestyo@scientia.net>
wrote:
> I think it's really a bad idea for the CFRG to strive so much for
> consensus.

If you believe in the security of curve25519 then you also believe in the
security of Microsoft's current position at ~128 bits. They have the same
structure and thus strictly the same strength.

There's /no/ possibility of weakening anything, mathematically, with a
different base point (in the correct subgroup) or by using an isogeny.

IRTF groups do not, technically, have to reach consensus. However, everyone
does have to function on the same Internet at the end of the day.

Cheers

AGL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email