Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/08/2014 05:11 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> draft-ladd-safecurves contains the Safecurves with orders
>> 2^255+\epsilon and higher.
>> I forgot to update the TOC, but that shouldn't stop the substantive
>> conversation.
>>
>> Does anyone object to these curves being approved for IETF standard
>> body use/typos/general nastiness?
>
> No objection, but there's maybe some checking to be done
> before we're ready to push the button.

Absolutely! Please double check I didn't make any typos, and if you have
MAGMA access, redo the verifications. This goes for everyone. The more eyeballs
on this, the less chance we make a bad mistake. safecurves.cr.yp.to comes with
a script to redo everything.

Also, if anyone knows something that DJB and Tanja Lange do not, please tell us!

>
> One thing though is that rfc 3526 [1] is standards track
> so if there's a reason for that (and there may or may not
> be;-) then we might want these to be the same which'd
> mean not doing 'em in cfrg. That can be figured out later
> though.

I have no opinions about how this gets to from draft to RFC. I
understand there are many channels, and
someone will have to pick one.
>
> S.
>
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3526
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Watson Ladd
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>
>>

-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin