Re: [Cfrg] Preserving Implementation Optimizations

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 02 September 2014 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 65A531A00DC for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 OY0MwolPfH_t for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2AD1A0083 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962F4F9C058; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 03:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u6IFgzixy0Gf; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 03:37:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 81.213.19.241.dynamic.ttnet.com.tr (unknown [81.213.19.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4951FF9C059; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 03:37:57 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C71D1204BB0E@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 02:27:55 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E871BED-DA6B-45E7-8D00-B258A5FACAD4@vigilsec.com>
References: <01DE592A-008C-4CD7-BD00-07FD25B4B463@vigilsec.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C71D1204BB0E@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/h_3KH3zhk8YpKm2nAXO0B3rYzZY
Cc: IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Preserving Implementation Optimizations
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, 02 Sep 2014 07:38:30 -0000

Rich:

>> First, the use of the same curve for digital signature and key agreement is
>> highly desirable.  This provides obvious modularity.
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by the term "modularity"?

In structuring an implementation, I see different interfaces for signing and key agreement.  The software and hardware that implement these interfaces will have several modules, with a wide multiply at the more primitive end of things.  In my view, the more modules that are in common between signing and key agreement the better.

Russ