Re: [Cfrg] Curve manipulation, revisited

Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us> Mon, 29 December 2014 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <b@b3k.us>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8231A8BB4 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:37:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 Yz_eUfqayLrj for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 128311A8AEB for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b13so19705883wgh.4 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:36:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=+lCzwjIT+PHohgFnCWpcwHZsAW+Ck2/SJ3Xn2bIuGko=; b=CAyU3WXPTvPY+oZvp33DZsa6Wiq8Fnlhx26RdynBnZcYglumj2A/Sv7ZwPRZNW2wHX HfuYohKJdGDKS/hLJ/RJTlSQGQnqkIzdBN4zFt9+4GUN9CjsW55BosfxCXXGb/6Syk/S xQ6Kh6i+xkUzz3OM4sXGe+HzYvtwLd6QpRC+/7Ukvlkh252Nkc0E/xFP2Rs05Zf4jpXt wTA8MqCOfpObUJATodBnaWcS8HaGdUiDu2z/naQaP5JiGKfkSMFF/EQzPkwBGOvVWe4b +ukw3V9DcL/gr57lAU4ru+5HuTyUAGEacKAe8a+rLMMT2wcANJa7BKvTH+J5uxXHZTtM tuKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTuuWy4+rXOx6x1qvDG5YpODq2Q9MrVJCFZyuupFoOWXNuNzS9SSB9c80Mvq2UFsRRsbzX
X-Received: by 10.180.74.208 with SMTP id w16mr97736862wiv.2.1419885414742; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:36:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.190.139 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:36:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cnmy1u+1uY=8NMkq1Sh_A-kX9LOKJA3u1QFpO=ZgvFG2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMfhd9W684XMmXn3ueDmwrsQ_ZdiFG+VqYLxkvs7qDwiJdpk6w@mail.gmail.com> <1725646678.805875.1419539885135.JavaMail.yahoo@jws100115.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAMfhd9Ua5fFZk46Xx1AN2VgyJ=Yng6fnO8aN-_ZfzXQn0Xbxhg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+Vbu7zqFcu8d1053mZ_eEm0q=np6T3snSQ4rfY0k1-4hBVDsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMfhd9XEqMwFzJ4sK4aHGbke6REZb26uaEEv9gbM5v_goDzwUA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+Vbu7zO3OatbC+cXiV58hvJCuqiTYvnsSuyopDXum4qBX54fw@mail.gmail.com> <EBD3350E-93CA-4D85-91C0-560D17187572@shiftleft.org> <CA+Vbu7zxGm3EE7h3K2mg5WoziUf4bmjoaCAVzFgaaGsE=kLFpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0cnmy1u+1uY=8NMkq1Sh_A-kX9LOKJA3u1QFpO=ZgvFG2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:36:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+Vbu7y3dJ4sX3SxjnaxuTK2Ew5uEFOFbdSGveiqaNGBU98byw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04389217c49413050b60d541
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/dsZ5nPOlJigef1MJaA4QLGzRXaI
Cc: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Curve manipulation, revisited
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:37:02 -0000

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>
> I also don't see why this matters: now that Montgomery x form and
> complete coordinates for signatures are being used, there isn't a
> difference between the rival proposals on this point.
>
>
Does this mean you find the draft with the additions of x-only and the
cofactor constraint acceptable?


b