Re: [Cfrg] Call for adoption: Threshold Signatures

a) As one of the authors, yes.
b) Both (see below)
c) yes

I agree that we should proceed on the basis of specifying FROST. However,
most of the work that went into my spec was setting up the text so it is a
logical extension of RFC8032 and producing test vectors. So I think it
would probably make sense to merge.

I would also like to ask why we are starting with the hard application
(signature) and ignoring threshold key generation and threshold key
exchange.

On the NIST topic, I am pretty sure they don't want us to be waiting on
them.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 12:34 PM Nick Sullivan <nick=
40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Dear CFRG participants,
>
> After some active conversations on the mailing list, there seems to be
> support for taking on work related to threshold signatures at the CFRG.
> This email commences a 3-week call for adoption for the topic of "Threshold
> Signatures" that will end on October 28th, 2020:
>
> There are two drafts that have been submitted for consideration on this
> topic:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-komlo-frost/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hallambaker-threshold-sigs/
>
> Please give your views on the following questions:
> a) should this topic be adopted by the CFRG as a work item, and if so
> b) should one or both of these documents should be considered as a
> starting point for this work
> c) are you willing to help work on this item and/or review it
>
> Please reply to this email (or in exceptional circumstances, you can email
> CFRG chairs directly at cfrg-chairs@ietf.org).
>
> Thank you,
> Nick (for the chairs)
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>