Re: [Cfrg] Call for adoption: Threshold Signatures

a) I think this could be a good item for CFRG to work on.  To Paul's point,
I think the discussion here can complement the NIST process.  One potential
point of difference / complementarity -- I would like it if whatever this
group produces could include concrete instantiations for the CFRG signature
schemes Ed25519 and Ed448.  Not sure if NIST is looking at things at that
level of granularity.

b) I have reviewed both documents, and FROST seems like the clearly better
option here.  Like Nick, I am more of a consumer than a cryptographer, but
FROST seems to have considered a much broader collection of risks (e.g.,
the attack by Drijvers et al.) and operational considerations than PHB's
scheme.  And as an implementer, I found FROST very clearly specified and
easy to understand.  I was able to adapt it for use with Ed25519 and
implement it in Go without much trouble.

c) I am willing to contribute and provide reviews on updated documents.  In
particular, as noted above, I've thought a bit about specializating FROST
to Ed25519, and would be glad to contribute that as a starting point.

--Richard

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
>