Re: [Cfrg] normative references

"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Wed, 15 January 2014 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFC91AE42B for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:15:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.867
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 iPsrE1i_LEDO for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396D71AE237 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565A9A88812E; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <05aca79ff0d73955dd29560e6a69f8a2.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cnw8MydqSxL0fEjM+jzB+UUfqwMoMVqG2Df99pU30Tr5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.4685.1389738617.2658.cfrg@irtf.org> <52D645EC.4000408@gmail.com> <52D684EE.9050304@cisco.com> <CEFBFBE5.2C52B%paul@marvell.com> <CACsn0cmegQ8_CjCFx7VN30yQ=P=Neb8kLr-i+wgj680E16V1rQ@mail.gmail.com> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D018B7FB9B37@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> <CACsn0cnw8MydqSxL0fEjM+jzB+UUfqwMoMVqG2Df99pU30Tr5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: "Watson Ladd" <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>, David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] normative references
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:15:15 -0000

On Wed, January 15, 2014 1:30 pm, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> wrote:
>>
>>  ⨳|
>>  ⨳|Or the same level of C library support. I'd much rather have
>> everyone
>>  ⨳|copy a well-made library then write their own bugs we have to deal
>>  ⨳|with down the line/that the SIGINT people exploit. But yes, better
>>  ⨳|documentation about how to implement is necessary.
>> We're in the documentation business here - not code libraries. Plus
>> we're
>> supposed to have multiple interoperable different implementations.
>
> Do you really think everyone implementing P256 does it themselves? Or do
> they
> take example code from the Internet?

  The number of libraries is not equal to the number of people that use
them (i.e. no, "everyone" is not implementing it themselves) but the number
of libraries is also much greater than 1 (i.e. everyone is not using the
same "well-made" library).

  You're writing a document that must be implemented by _multiple_
people _independently_. If there was just going to be one implementation
that everyone used there would be no need for the document you're
writing-- the code would be the document.

>>  ⨳|
>>  ⨳|>     Also Š long numbers should be consistently represented hex
>>  ⨳|versus
>>  ⨳|> decimal
>>  ⨳|
>>  ⨳|Why hex? Most math papers use decimal, and more importantly GP/PARI
>>  ⨳|doesn't accept hex.
>>  ⨳|MAGMA, PARI and Sage are going to be used for test vector
>> validation.
>> [ ⨳]
>> By you maybe ...
>>
>> Hex fits better in an RFC ...  decimal would be fine also.
>
> Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

  Let me express a strong preference for hex. It's more natural when
dealing with bit strings.

  Dan.