Re: [Cfrg] Requirements for curve candidate evaluation update

William Whyte <> Wed, 13 August 2014 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18A01A6FC1 for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zmejgheWsrOm for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BC7C1A6FBC for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hz1so13968514pad.36 for <>; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:thread-index:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=TJktRUpi2r0S1FoIq8izq4VqHJm7pDpORROeKz3mqwU=; b=K9rMehbsQoBUOPYOy0DePljUpbOmQzE4ilSbJZulpFE5ZpoGC43IYCnsEO/yRcMCUm TBn+moG+viBRs5cSrbePHDRnb6LZH8N17REgyATsXEaDPr5cocPuv9QqLU/ofcOczbaa doyb/HrujcEqfjdYG9KlCvS58mt2B7K6/30Ss=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:thread-index :mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=TJktRUpi2r0S1FoIq8izq4VqHJm7pDpORROeKz3mqwU=; b=NAyZWskKz+EbTP+7E9BcKWCqgQhHsDHzBPK8N1zHVE7FSTw5ttZUOlA64YULb/Ncl0 Oq7b1/nILXAuJzCl/rvmQBlqfj7UCIdJzkUyLpL92gARpC3y++LE6RtPgU1H0xXkuucu 8y7P4gZHfUItRMRYh1NY99A2JPx0dNAiKJwcZEm+LbxGNhjbvHYYkNuLDd9NoG0BoAkp CmbNJAz3QfJaaX5b49Br21Qr8Es3WokEDFqAKUV6leUa16UqW9yIbgNw5lq8id69siY9 hxPWwibJ5Pu+k9YJ/JiwKM/D2LN7UJk65bj+OTh+bhlsddUOVvT6D1pS7Fdpnf0ySULD QMdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOy6JxGr4r9dPyqzqANXDKTR65HxBsw3AjCRYgI7PKVrneLdmxuJQQHf0OpmCK8kiR3Chq
X-Received: by with SMTP id pz6mr51075pac.145.1407894545046; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Whyte <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIhVhc0dkfrh7tpttcVSPrwLyg8AwGOsYN+mx4OgFA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:49:03 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Watson Ladd <>, Benjamin Black <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=047d7b5d9a2b3e8135050078fed5
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requirements for curve candidate evaluation update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 01:49:06 -0000

[Benjamin Black]
> 5. No changes to coordinate wire formats.

[Watson Ladd]
> Does this mean just Weierstrass? Or is a change to Edwards somehow not
a change in the wire format? (Of course this doesn't constrain the
curves either)

Requirement 5 strikes me as entirely unnecessary. Why is it important that
two different curves have the same wire format? The wire format can be one
of the things identified by the curve identifier, and each curve will have a
certain amount of custom code anyway; why does it matter if this custom code
includes code to interpret the wire format? I'd like to see this requirement
more thoroughly justified.