IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 23 December 2014 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 38BBD1A1B8C for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:58:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 3cv3xK9feiXr for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com [72.246.2.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AB41A1AC2 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3E228526; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:58:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com [172.17.121.112]) by prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574AF2852D; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:58:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com (unknown [172.27.123.34]) by prod-mail-relay07.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515F98004A; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:58:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from usma1ex-cashub7.kendall.corp.akamai.com (172.27.105.23) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.22; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:58:47 -0500
Received: from USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([169.254.1.15]) by usma1ex-cashub7.kendall.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.105.23]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:58:47 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:58:45 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]
Thread-Index: AdAbwFKAm5ULK/vpR9Wtk0eyTtTDKwDKY1Kw
Message-ID: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C71D55236C92@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <CA+Vbu7ye3bytMZ-j8pfZixrjF8irTOoWmRo_GwjB0LphwjXq+Q@mail.gmail.com> <20141202092847.29027.qmail@cr.yp.to> <CA+Vbu7yQoYf3ei3MADhJ1iV6BcuqVUmkg8SkQ4ud=8m7pz7AvQ@mail.gmail.com> <D0B0DC9F.39BD0%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk> <CACsn0c=uyPT6xa4CsXPeAV31QeeO+HfsCXAxt7Ba6NOt_Y2hiA@mail.gmail.com> <CABqy+sr1T-VwQx1NaRA+xvnqVn7smjs2+YrG2Uz1Q+8M6c3hng@mail.gmail.com> <D0B8EDCF.3A504%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk> <CACsn0cnkdjEPGZ5Q1Nm+6OZJVdoj6X-ksc0X_atavQ+610MkXA@mail.gmail.com> <D0B9A74B.3A60D%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk> <54941DAC.7030208@w3.org> <CACsn0cks4Vhz4EcKFvZ=6f0k+H2NwrTuCz0EM727SGd6R0Xyqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cks4Vhz4EcKFvZ=6f0k+H2NwrTuCz0EM727SGd6R0Xyqg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/g46tJMeAont0r5OGk207PpdmI3E
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]
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: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:58:52 -0000

Is there any question about the way Curve25519 was generated?  As I understand it, the RPGECC authors are willing to modify their document so that 25519 can be generated.  Then why can't we just approve the current 25519 draft and say we'll have the overall framework out soon.  (I'm not smart enough to try to pick a date -- or, perhaps, I'm too smart to try.)

Programmers often have this tendency to think that going bigger and doing yet another abstraction will result in a clean comprehensive solution that fits nicely into the mindset.  It rarely works.  Sometimes going back to first principles is just going backward.

Santa, I've been pretty good this year.  Can I please have 25519 in a nice pretty wrapping?   The rest of it can wait until the end of Advent.

	/r$

--  
Principal Security Engineer, Akamai Technologies
IM: rsalz@jabber.me Twitter: RichSalz

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status