Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft

[Paul Lambert <[e-mail]>]

> > You should also look at: RFC 6090
> > The math for Small Wierstrass curves is defined well - you need the
> > equivalent of
> > 6090 for Edwards curves.  Do note the authors of this excellent RFC
> > Include both chairs of this list.
> 
> First, is this advising me on next steps, or is it an objection to the
> draft?
Next steps.  I'm very supportive of the inclusion of these curves into the main stream.

> The group is [l]Jac(E(F_q)). There, done. In fact, this is in the
> introduction.
> The equivalent to RFC 6090 is the Bernstein paper on addition on
> Edwards (and twisted Edwards curves).
> It's readily available. If you want to reformat it as an I-D, go right
> ahead.
Academic papers are not appropriate directly.  Clear and concise algorithm 
descriptions and guidelines are required.


> 
> Is it really that bad to have the EFD get cited for the formulas, or to
> advise implementers to read Handbook of Elliptic and Hyperelliptic
> Curve Cryptography?
Yes.  They are not standards.  They are not always precise and subject to
Interpretation and bad implementation.  
They are not complete ... Dan's point about OIDs and the like required
to actually use the curves.



Paul