Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-agl-cfrgcurve-00 as a RG document

On Jan 5, 2015 3:02 PM, "Adam Langley" <agl@imperialviolet.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> > whether you want a particular change be made to the
> > document before adoption.
>
> The structure of the current draft anticipates an additional curve and
> also signature work so I'd like to point out a couple of changes to
> save others having to do so:
>
> 1) If no other curves end up being recommended, then the current
> generation process is overly complicated and could well be replaced
> with a description that mirrors how curve25519 was actually chosen:
> i.e. that the minimal sensible A value in Montgomery form be chosen.
> It really depends on how important a generic procedure is seen to be.

Minimal Montgomery is as generic as minimal Edwards unless I am missing
something.

>
> 2) The procedure for generating base points is currently unused and,
> if change (1) is done, it could be tweaked to reflect how the
> curve25519 base point was generated.
>
> 3) If we don't end up saying anything about signatures, all mention of
> Edwards curves could conceivably be dropped.
>
> Not to mention that several sections should be greatly expanded upon,
> clarified etc. I think such changes can be considered as a given.

Were above made, I believe said draft would be largely identical to the
version of draft Turner in github, which has added a description of the
generation proceedure.

I support adoption of either one.

>
>
> To contrast, if you desire changes like "a different curve should be
> recommended" then I think that translates to not supporting adoption.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> AGL
>
> --
> Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org https://www.imperialviolet.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg