Re: [Cfrg] Citing specs in specs

>>
>>So your argument is that until such a document is written, the IETF
>>should not approve any RFC containing such a curve because absent such
>>a document, the specification is unclear?
>
>No - I’m asking that an RFC be well written and contain enough information
>to implement the RFC.

Seeing now that this is cross posted to TLS… let me be clear.
The onus is onthe CRFG to produce a useable normative reference that can
be used
by TLS and other IETF protocols for using Edwards and Montogomery
elliptic curves.

Paul

>
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>>I disagree: the information
>>you demand to be placed into the spec can be figured out in a few days
>>of research in the library. There are numerous standard references on
>>bignum arithmetic, and given this with the paper of Montgomery, there
>>is nothing else that is needed to write an implementation that is
>>correct.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Watson Ladd
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is true that the author of the Curve25519 paper is neither a large
>>>>> corporation nor an organization with ³Standards² in its name, and did
>>>>> not label Curve25519 as a Œstandard¹ in the paper's title.  However,
>>>>> the Curve25519 scalar multiplication function specified in the paper
>>>>> became a Œstandard¹, in the sense which IETF claims to use the word,
>>>>> when software developers came to the rough consensus that it was a
>>>>> good cryptographic primitive to use, and wrote and deployed running
>>>>> code which implements it.
>>>>
>>>>That is not the sense which the IETF claims to use the word.
>>>>
>>>>> The Curve25519 paper is available for free
>>>>> from the URL <http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/curve25519-20060209.pdf>.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your objection to using the Curve25519 paper as a normative
>>>>> reference for the standard Curve25519 scalar multiplication function?
>>>>
>>>>The paper is at a URL; the contents of that URL can change any time.
>>>>RFCs
>>>>can sometimes make normative reference to URLs that seem very stable,
>>>>and
>>>>Dan's might or might not be. Dan has a history of poking at the IETF
>>>>(sometimes for good reason), so it is quite believable that he might
>>>>change the contents of that URL just to make a point. Having a more
>>>>stable reference would clearly be better.
>>>>
>>>>--Paul Hoffman
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
>>Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
>>-- Benjamin Franklin
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cfrg mailing list
>Cfrg@irtf.org
>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg