Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferred scheme, ends on September 24th

+1 eddsa
0 ladd
0 liusvaara
0 brown

Without W3C hat on.

      cheers,
            harry

On 09/26/2015 03:50 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 18:27, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> Dear CFRG,
>>
>> We previously asked for a short discussion to flush out any last issues
>> or additional points of comparison between the different candidate
>> signature schemes that everyone should be aware of. A few interesting
>> and potentially important topics were raised by various people - thank
>> you for those inputs. Roughly, those topics were:
>>
>> - IPR considerations
>> - Implementation and deployment status
>> - Facility to sign without public key
>> - Facility to verify without public key
>> - Reuse of same keys with IUF and non-IUF schemes (but note that, based
>> on the outcome of an earlier poll, we are only working on a scheme for
>> the IUF interface)
>> - Coordinate system independence
>>
>> We want to keep these topics in the foreground, but feel strongly that
>> any scheme changes that might be decided upon as a result of their
>> further consideration could equally well be made to any of the current
>> candidates. (If authors of different proposals disagree with this
>> assertion, they should speak up now.)
>>
>> In view of this, we would now like to run a poll to decide on which one
>> of the current candidates we will take forward and develop. As a
>> reminder, those four candidates are:
>>
>> "ladd", "liusvaara", "brown", and "eddsa" (Bernstein et al)
>>
>> with "hamburg" having been eliminated at an earlier stage.
>>
>> This message starts a 2 weeks Quaker poll that would close on September
>> 24th. Please reply +1 (prefer or greatly favor), 0 (can live with or
>> accept) or -1 (cannot live with or tolerate)) for each of the 4
>> signature schemes. Short explanation of your position are welcome, but
>> this is not a time for rehashing old debates. Pointing to older messages
>> on the mailing list is also encouraged.
>>
>> As a usual reminder, please don't discuss other topics in this thread.
>>
>> Once the poll is completed, and assuming there is a clear preference
>> arising from the group, we (the chairs) will then seek volunteers to
>> join an editorial team whose job will be to develop an Internet draft
>> describing the selected scheme. As usual, that team will be expected to
>> respond to suggestions for changes to the draft that have the CFRG
>> support; we may run further polls to help determine any such changes.
> Dear CFRG participants,
> It looks like there is preference for eddsa, but there is shortage of
> answers to this poll. If anybody else wants to state his/her opinion
> (publicly and privately) by the end of Monday, 28th. If no major new
> feedback is given, chairs will declare rough consensus for the eddsa
> signature scheme.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@mail.ietf.org
> https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg