Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft

Dear Watson,

Great initiative. I think the doc should include a summary on the criteria
DJB and Lange use (the parameter and security requirements) similar to the
Brainpool one (RFC5639).

I do wonder, should this doc comment/make recommendations on the use of
unsafe curves according to these criteria?

Regards,
Isaac

-----Original Message-----
From: Cfrg [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Thursday, 9 January, 2014 01:22
To: Watson Ladd; cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft

On 01/08/2014 05:11 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> Dear all,
> draft-ladd-safecurves contains the Safecurves with orders 
> 2^255+\epsilon and higher.
> I forgot to update the TOC, but that shouldn't stop the substantive 
> conversation.
> 
> Does anyone object to these curves being approved for IETF standard 
> body use/typos/general nastiness?

No objection, but there's maybe some checking to be done before we're ready
to push the button.

One thing though is that rfc 3526 [1] is standards track so if there's a
reason for that (and there may or may not
be;-) then we might want these to be the same which'd mean not doing 'em in
cfrg. That can be figured out later though.

S.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3526

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