Re: [Cfrg] Complexity of the Microsoft curve proposal

Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us> Fri, 17 October 2014 23:55 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <253D0648-0DDE-497E-8BC1-4DD2805640E4@shiftleft.org>
References: <075fdb98d04b42d08e39dbc706cc21fa@DM2PR03MB495.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <253D0648-0DDE-497E-8BC1-4DD2805640E4@shiftleft.org>
From: Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:54:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+Vbu7wBH2LfAiCcTUOkSn=bSzMoq2Zehz2YxfzA0hCeFgteyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hamburg <mike@shiftleft.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c38aeae891560505a717d5"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/RU8Q2gXkBcrXOZe2MKloirP-tIE
Cc: "cfrg@ietf.org" <cfrg@ietf.org>, Craig Costello <craigco@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Complexity of the Microsoft curve proposal
Precedence: list

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Michael Hamburg <mike@shiftleft.org> wrote:

> I don’t think everyone on this list would agree with the above statement,
> though.  A pretty big part of Benjamin Black’s argument against \w+25519 is
> the idea that they are different curves, not just different coordinates for
> the same curve, even though the curves are isomorphic and not just
> isogenous.
>
>
For the record, my argument was, and is, that _requiring_ implementation of
multiple forms of the same curve is undesirable and unnecessary. At the
time, the discussion was not \w+25519, but X25519 and Ed25519 (and
apologies if I have made mistakes with the various 25519 names). As the
discussion has moved on from there, I don't think it is terribly relevant.


b

[Cfrg] Complexity of the Microsoft curve proposal Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] Complexity of the Microsoft curve prop… Craig Costello
Re: [Cfrg] Complexity of the Microsoft curve prop… Michael Hamburg
[Cfrg] Fwd: Complexity of the Microsoft curve pro… Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] Complexity of the Microsoft curve prop… Benjamin Black