Re: [Cfrg] Elliptic Curves - poll on specific curve around 256bit work factor (ends on February 23rd)

On Feb 20, 2015 9:21 AM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <phill@hallambaker.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Paterson, Kenny <
Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 20/02/2015 06:53, "Tony Arcieri" <bascule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Alexey Melnikov
>> ><alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >CFRG chairs are starting another poll:
>> >
>> >Q3: (For people who want CFRG to recommend a curve at 256bit level) Is
>> >bandwidth cost of going to p521 worth the speed win over primes closer
to
>> >512 bits?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Have you considered doing a poll of what specific curves people actually
>> >want to use?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, we considered a number of different ways of narrowing down our
>> choices. However, we settled on doing it this way. Please stick with us.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Kenny
>>
>
> Well maybe if we had discussed it first. As it is your poll completely
mis-states the reasons people prefer 512 over 521. Which rather undercuts
the whole process.

We've been discussing these issues for nearly a full year. You've had and
taken ample opportunity to explain why you don't like E-521, and the fact
that no one else is convinced has a lot to do with the strength of your
arguments.

>
> The way I would do this is as a Quaker poll asking people what their
preferred outcome is and what they can live with on 448, 480, 512 and 521.
>
> 448 - No
> 480 - Acceptable
> 512 - Preferred
> 521 - No
>
> This is meant to be a consensus process and we should be using consensus
seeking tools wherever possible. Votes for the best outcome are not the
best way to come to consensus.

No, it's about using our expertise to make the right decision. If your
arguments are wrong, don't expect us to pay attention.

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