[Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferred scheme, ends on September 24th
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 10 September 2015 17:27 UTC
Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 D80251B3ADC for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 uHuBVxf4HrOy for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [217.34.220.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2781AD2B2 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1441906070; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=mq48GZw3980zytj/YYt3ZWfsuFsCOYSKFcx+xwxYwGQ=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=icK5tzcia+RgaQTeunP6e2vWiKL+1gAvhpCS6T25pcekIiyVs7cGfZ1V9pdvlAv+Z/IYdi 5T9BySwbJ1eN6u9j2DcPSBm5sTda+w4+JC/q/3nMbJIYgqeHpZREUo03PJvroPFzgxWHhX E5osW6id75jfBpORzSEAOND14F7mlns=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VfG9lgAeTwiL@waldorf.isode.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:27:50 +0100
Message-ID: <55F1BD89.3020902@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:27:37 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/jxHJMxYW2WE3v_LuFYaVNbAIGN0>
Subject: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferred scheme, ends on September 24th
X-BeenThere: cfrg@mail.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.mail.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@mail.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@mail.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@mail.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@mail.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:27:53 -0000
Dear CFRG, We previously asked for a short discussion to flush out any last issues or additional points of comparison between the different candidate signature schemes that everyone should be aware of. A few interesting and potentially important topics were raised by various people - thank you for those inputs. Roughly, those topics were: - IPR considerations - Implementation and deployment status - Facility to sign without public key - Facility to verify without public key - Reuse of same keys with IUF and non-IUF schemes (but note that, based on the outcome of an earlier poll, we are only working on a scheme for the IUF interface) - Coordinate system independence We want to keep these topics in the foreground, but feel strongly that any scheme changes that might be decided upon as a result of their further consideration could equally well be made to any of the current candidates. (If authors of different proposals disagree with this assertion, they should speak up now.) In view of this, we would now like to run a poll to decide on which one of the current candidates we will take forward and develop. As a reminder, those four candidates are: "ladd", "liusvaara", "brown", and "eddsa" (Bernstein et al) with "hamburg" having been eliminated at an earlier stage. This message starts a 2 weeks Quaker poll that would close on September 24th. Please reply +1 (prefer or greatly favor), 0 (can live with or accept) or -1 (cannot live with or tolerate)) for each of the 4 signature schemes. Short explanation of your position are welcome, but this is not a time for rehashing old debates. Pointing to older messages on the mailing list is also encouraged. As a usual reminder, please don't discuss other topics in this thread. Once the poll is completed, and assuming there is a clear preference arising from the group, we (the chairs) will then seek volunteers to join an editorial team whose job will be to develop an Internet draft describing the selected scheme. As usual, that team will be expected to respond to suggestions for changes to the draft that have the CFRG support; we may run further polls to help determine any such changes. Best Regards, Kenny and Alexey
- [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferred sc… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Dan Brown
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Dan Brown
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Alyssa Rowan
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Dan Harkins
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… James Cloos
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Taylor R Campbell
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Harry Halpin
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Zooko Wilcox-OHearn
- Re: [Cfrg] EC signatures: Quaker poll on preferre… Yoav Nir