Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision?

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Wed, 08 October 2014 17:32 UTC

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:31:54 -0000
Message-ID: <20141008173154.15169.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: cfrg@irtf.org
Mail-Followup-To: cfrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cnHDc6_jWf1mXc5kQgj5XEc6dBBZa7K8D2=4uLti5e3aA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/_2KVunviyJP4TYLdtMp2W2KPSbk
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision?
Precedence: list

According to an announcement at ECC today, the Brainpool team is
completing a paper regarding curve requirements. Obviously Brainpool has
been a bit slow to join this discussion, and is already grandfathered
into TLS etc., but it sounds like they're serious about providing input
that might be useful in selecting new curves. It's also not clear to me
whether other teams (such as Barreto et al.) will have curve submissions
once the CFRG requirements are finalized.

Even if there are no other submissions and no changes to the draft
requirements, remember that there's a requirement for wiggle room to be
"quantified". For curves that take the as-fast-as-possible approach,
such as Curve25519, this is mostly answered by Mike Hamburg's "Rigidity
and performance" analysis of wiggle room in as-fast-as-possible primes,
but the chairs might want more information. For the Microsoft curves, I
presume that Microsoft is working on coming into compliance with this
requirement, and we're also doing our own analysis.

---Dan

[Cfrg] When's the decision? Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Yoav Nir
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Stephen Farrell
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? David Jacobson
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Michael Hamburg
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? David Jacobson
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? D. J. Bernstein
[Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks D. J. Bernstein
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Parkinson, Sean
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Parkinson, Sean
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Mike Hamburg
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Parkinson, Sean
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Mike Hamburg
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Parkinson, Sean
Re: [Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks David Jacobson
Re: [Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks Michael Hamburg
Re: [Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks Andrey Jivsov
Re: [Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks Parkinson, Sean
Re: [Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks D. J. Bernstein
Re: [Cfrg] Publicly verifiable benchmarks Michael Hamburg
[Cfrg] Constant-time implementations D. J. Bernstein
Re: [Cfrg] Constant-time implementations David Jacobson
Re: [Cfrg] Constant-time implementations Adam Langley
Re: [Cfrg] Constant-time implementations Yoav Nir
Re: [Cfrg] Constant-time implementations Watson Ladd
Re: [Cfrg] Constant-time implementations Mike Hamburg
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Paterson, Kenny
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Parkinson, Sean
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Ilari Liusvaara
Re: [Cfrg] When's the decision? Yoav Nir
[Cfrg] ed448goldilocks vs. numsp384t1 and numsp51… D. J. Bernstein
Re: [Cfrg] ed448goldilocks vs. numsp384t1 and num… Ilari Liusvaara
Re: [Cfrg] ed448goldilocks vs. numsp384t1 and num… Michael Hamburg
Re: [Cfrg] ed448goldilocks vs. numsp384t1 and num… Ilari Liusvaara
Re: [Cfrg] ed448goldilocks vs. numsp384t1 and num… Michael Hamburg