IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-ladd-spake2 as a RG document

Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> Thu, 22 January 2015 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@marvell.com>
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 7B9551A8030 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:59:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 BX-KQKMk79gG for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.156.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A897A1A7033 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t0MJsdPh030755; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:59:04 -0800
Received: from sc-owa04.marvell.com ([199.233.58.150]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1s2a34urgs-2 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:59:04 -0800
Received: from SC-vEXCH2.marvell.com ([10.93.76.134]) by SC-OWA04.marvell.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:59:02 -0800
From: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
To: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:59:01 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-ladd-spake2 as a RG document
Thread-Index: AdA2fd5Jvir6oS19SP2ZcwPObldMRQ==
Message-ID: <D0E695AD.59A55%paul@marvell.com>
References: <BF9DADF6-003F-454D-8E96-4A28A060CA72@isode.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D40DF8FE3@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <CAMfhd9Vu6AwRsbPAkK2OZXnSkYw3dkXUoYVqYgVxz9x7tkuJAw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMfhd9Vu6AwRsbPAkK2OZXnSkYw3dkXUoYVqYgVxz9x7tkuJAw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-01-22_07:2015-01-22, 2015-01-22, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1501220180
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/f_q3rqVtNkLxeVs8opvr5ugGL_M>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-ladd-spake2 as a RG document
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:59:10 -0000

On 1/22/15, 11:35 AM, "Adam Langley" <agl@imperialviolet.org> wrote:

>On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
><chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
>> A minor point compared to choice of curve. Commenting on draft
>>draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00, it indicates, in section 8 the use of
>>little-endian order. RFC 5480 (obvious prior art in IETF) does not
>>appear to specify big/little endianness, but delegates that to its
>>reference SEC1. That document (http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf) in
>>section 2.3.7 reverses the order of its x and M coefficients to produce
>>a big-endian representation of an integer. Big endian format is also
>>used by, for example, OpenSSL. Is the use of little endian format here a
>>deliberate design decision?
>
>(This appears to be a comment on draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00, but this
>thread is otherwise about draft-ladd-spake2 which is why I didn't
>notice it.)
>
>Yes, the use of little-endian is a deliberate decision. It reflects
>unanimous practice with the recommended curve. Also, I think there's a
>general movement towards having crypto primitives specified as
>functions on bytes strings rather than on more abstract concepts like
>points (which I support).
+1
Yes, given the diversity of uses, protocols and formats. Opaque encodings
make the most sense.
The encoding/decoding would be a method tied to the specific
algorithm/protocol/cipher suite.

Paul


>
>
>Cheers
>
>AGL
>
>-- 
>Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org https://www.imperialviolet.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cfrg mailing list
>Cfrg@irtf.org
>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

v2.12.3 | Report a Bug | By Email