From nobody Mon Sep 6 00:41:17 2021 Return-Path: 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 A878F3A2545 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 00:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=miracl.com 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 E8CqHKp91liB for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 00:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9AE73A2544 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2021 00:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id e133so12013564ybh.0 for ; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:41:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=miracl.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Hg1NUrHHm1twkavA7P1b4kxWB34x5J6g7s1jkgkD3Es=; b=YzqWttgfk5Gh7I9qRc9eHdvR0qoSRJqrkPMAP20G+8Pgz8XU+lNaBP2zSICN7+gxkP DyZvQvTmoLnG1Avz/bKQnXZVeVruAv7cVdvnRZ+THA7W3L5eWpI5vO+YW6jE3FZlbaUJ KL+ZVV0YpA5BtTJYs4tlkAEHJ0uMqVdaZVjg+z2vrge2ATz+d5xDnQIbdNe2dvoIUovg XTpWNdCQTauKVv1tcxqgdad1wqPbgEUIROAXzapWcfAdG8zxD8dOTIf6AndAmIUqKZ8m 68AqZ2qZOOnPUrJG1ZHk20eiX0aIB1ptz+qQLI/XiiyjQ55zqNtA7TifIcfmyFYq7yM0 ScBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Hg1NUrHHm1twkavA7P1b4kxWB34x5J6g7s1jkgkD3Es=; b=ZD5zBY0op2o0T7UabsNBfBuCg23GbpOgvU3G63E0YKm4vFSKss3+vDGcnwv4fTBE97 c7OpWCoTU9bQbU5IAgd+CDhF9vUwOibCkwSQJbpU2T15vXapt48W87i2Tn2fv1YiiD6L C5CsWZHLzX4F3RqjTPNoIwpXgJa/yhtaG3jHdhQ40nwbkhCBq3nsFf20CNsPefqH46kM lU5uvXRip48Uu+m4tLfjItpkdTJzPAx/fiAIlTCdx2uWcl42zeJWfnK4Irlp3PDld+E+ TzD3CyvcqiD6n4HpGwXcGnHMiDKdr/6fuGfW3NorwTHkL9OcR7PPkld3mvbG7666ST5L qsOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ccsnOAsH69N8uG1FEZMCZl66fex+vwiWkQIjOvafGn96AFJRk T31dC0AGSNIwivkQh3sDLupIHYXjjyxSLIZnPqC55w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyz4FRJHYgtPlSR9CxJpIPhIhMU4LMdJ7PMkyh6OnNrAi1+8ZdQ653bbjcbhCNMAN6/wtyTr335pl4B9ZCSpJc= X-Received: by 2002:a25:b48:: with SMTP id 69mr12834903ybl.258.1630914065880; Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:41:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Michael Scott Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 08:41:53 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" Cc: CFRG , cfrg-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008e6fe005cb4ec570" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CFRG] Second RGLC on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2021 07:41:14 -0000 --0000000000008e6fe005cb4ec570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I would like to reiterate my support for this proposed standard. The authors have diligently responded to earlier feedback, the pairing-friendly curves proposed have not received any substantive criticism, and in some cases have already been widely adopted. Therefore in my view this draft standard is ready to progress. Mike Scott On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 4:40 PM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev wrote: > Dear CFRG participants, > > This message starts a second RGLC on "Pairing-Friendly Curves" > (draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-10), that will end on September, > 8th. > > See > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves/ > for the latest version of the draft. > > We are having the second RGLC since Yumi Sakemi has provided (see > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/-1nTbbVRlkP5wV2odEYFac-jK08/) > updated replies for the questions raised after the first RGLC. > > Please send your comments, as well as expression of support to publish as > an RFC (or possible reasons for not doing so) in reply to this message or > directly to CFRG chairs. > > Regards, > Stanislav, Nick and Alexey > _______________________________________________ > CFRG mailing list > CFRG@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg > --0000000000008e6fe005cb4ec570 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to reiterate my support for this proposed sta= ndard. The authors have diligently=C2=A0responded to earlier feedback, the = pairing-friendly curves proposed have not received any substantive criticis= m, and in some cases have already been widely adopted. Therefore in my view= this draft standard is ready to progress.

Mike Scott

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 4:40 PM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <smyshsv@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear CFRG partic= ipants,

This message starts a second RGLC on "Pairing-Friendly = Curves" (draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-10), that will end on= September, 8th.

See https://datat= racker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves/ for the la= test version of the draft.

We are having the second RGLC since Yumi = Sakemi has provided (see https://mailarchive.iet= f.org/arch/msg/cfrg/-1nTbbVRlkP5wV2odEYFac-jK08/) updated replies for t= he questions raised after the first RGLC.

Please send your comments,= as well as expression of support to publish as an RFC (or possible reasons= for not doing so) in reply to this message or directly to CFRG chairs.
=
Regards,
Stanislav, Nick and Alexey
_______________________________________________
CFRG mailing list
CFRG@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
--0000000000008e6fe005cb4ec570--