Re: [Cfrg] EC signature: next steps

On Aug 31, 2015 9:09 AM, "Simon Josefsson" <simon@josefsson.org> wrote:
>
> Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> writes:
>
> > - are there important characteristics or points of comparison that
> > Ilari's summary does not cover?
>
> 1) Maturity.  Ed25519 was published through CHES in 2011 and has been
> peer-reviewed since then.  I would appreciate if someone could find
> dates of publications on the other proposals and find out how much of
> scientific review they have seen.
>
> 2) Implementation status.  There are many Ed25519 implementations
> around, many are freely available with source code under liberal
> licenses.  Understanding the status of the other proposals would be
> useful too.
>
> 3) Deployment.  Ed25519 is implemented and deployed by two IETF
> protocols (SSH and OpenPGP), with more on their way.  There are many
> libraries around for implementation, see
> <http://ianix.com/pub/ed25519-deployment.html>.
>
> > - are there errors of fact or omission that need to be corrected?
>
> 1) I don't understand by this part of Ilari's writeup: 'dictated by
> ???'.
>
> 2) I disagree with 'Neither personalization nor firewalling is
> supported.'.  As far as I understand what Ilari intend, both are
> supported in the sense that they can be added by a higher-level
> abstraction, which I believe is a more appropriate approach than jamming
> this into the signature primitive.
>
> 3) What is NPOT?

At this point I see no reason not to recommend EdDSA as the result.
>
> /Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@mail.ietf.org
> https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>