Re: [Cfrg] Preference for focus on EC rather than PAKE

"Paterson, Kenny" <> Thu, 16 October 2014 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75831A7029 for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mR-C-V26kvR5 for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::687]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 623CD1A8033 for <>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.10; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:50:03 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1049.012; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:50:03 +0000
From: "Paterson, Kenny" <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Preference for focus on EC rather than PAKE
Thread-Index: AQHP5DE+nMk2iy30sUuglSKsEN07gZwy+gOA
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:50:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR03MB381;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 036614DD9C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(51704005)(24454002)(479174003)(199003)(189002)(46102003)(92566001)(19580405001)(107886001)(80022003)(74482002)(66066001)(21056001)(97736003)(15202345003)(86362001)(19580395003)(92726001)(99396003)(122556002)(31966008)(50986999)(106116001)(106356001)(54356999)(105586002)(76482002)(4396001)(95666004)(2656002)(15975445006)(87936001)(64706001)(120916001)(20776003)(36756003)(85306004)(107046002)(101416001)(83506001)(76176999)(2501002)(40100003)(85852003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR03MB381;; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Preference for focus on EC rather than PAKE
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:51:01 -0000

Dear Paul,

Sorry for the delay in picking this up. Alexei and I met a few days ago
and discussed the workload of the research group (and we'll continue to
meet regularly, as we're both located in the same neck of the woods in

We believe we (the co-chairs and the wider membership) will have enough
cycles to do both things at the same time, though we do agree that the ECC
work should have the higher priority.



On 10/10/2014 03:23, "Paul Hoffman" <> wrote:

>Greetings. This RG has historically done a poor job of working on
>multiple disparate items at the same time. For some of us, the need for
>the RG to come up with concise, understandable response to the request
>from the TLS WG (which will also affect many other WGs) is about an order
>of magnitude higher than the need to evaluate PAKEs. The latter can wait
>until the higher-importance item is finished.
>--Paul Hoffman
>Cfrg mailing list