IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Help with the use of contexts

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 29 January 2017 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A04E1297B8 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQXaqdOeOAkv for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 608D51297AC for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3B8BE2C; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:37:36 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7j5CS62mro0M; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:37:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22981BE2E; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:37:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1485733055; bh=y9WY4+f0W98TT6NTicH5vqx2nA7cy8N9sUIP6UWgSt8=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=z/3MdM+mR/pNO4wrMLk+oowjPf+BGoGbMsTlq39iFBHKxzJGLRFdLkjltwFdrhXI2 xxC3vqIBGsUfLgB/T+81CjH1+SePxV3Juj+gVg7UFYuVu6yWPMXAxoMp/1A7z1jIhi OsKvekrheKJIzgOYCTxGDHq6PL5Z7celR19bi9Pg=
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
References: <20170116200948.6535.qmail@cr.yp.to> <5eeb3d4d-1fc0-35ba-6f47-87fa0d808edc@cs.tcd.ie> <AA42E783-43FC-4C9B-A387-623B5B18B4FB@gmail.com> <708C8E8E-37AE-4B8F-9843-B0F8CDB29229@gmail.com> <CACsn0cm22h8_61CEZjKYyHfnd7vvnC39ZMjhusjWcZKu_Z0zhw@mail.gmail.com> <DA141A39-05C2-4B87-92FA-AE8C5421E104@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <0435210f-0aa4-1c34-89d6-0f7a2aef0621@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:37:34 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DA141A39-05C2-4B87-92FA-AE8C5421E104@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms020305000503050909070406"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/VMVi87PZqE82nHkYHp8WfnhxEjg>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Help with the use of contexts
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 23:37:41 -0000


On 29/01/17 23:24, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Regardless, ISTM that almost nobody is advocating for using contexts
> now for Ed448 in any of the above applications, or for using
> Ed25519ctx in there.

If cfrg decided to revisit the decision and eliminate contexts,
I don't think anyone would really suffer. (And any sufferer
can always write an RFC too if that's really needed.)

Cheers,
S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email