IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Submission of curve25519 to NIST from CFRG -> was RE: On "non-NIST"

Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> Tue, 10 March 2015 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@marvell.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 D29CF1A8F3C for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 aUi1iypgZHJp for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.156.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43C221A8F37 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045851.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t2AMOO7g001611; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:42 -0700
Received: from sc-owa.marvell.com ([199.233.58.135]) by mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1t20qj9u5y-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:42 -0700
Received: from SC-vEXCH2.marvell.com ([10.93.76.134]) by SC-OWA.marvell.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:41 -0700
From: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
To: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:27:40 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Submission of curve25519 to NIST from CFRG -> was RE: On "non-NIST"
Thread-Index: AdBbf+4wXdw/rQAlRIWo8m78iaEwnAAAEyfg
Message-ID: <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D020E29C433B@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AAF91123@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <BE305B0B-80D2-48C6-ACE6-6F6544A04D69@vpnc.org> <7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D020E29C4319@SC-VEXCH2.marvell.com> <CAHOTMVLJOhsPoUDoh176U5iM7cOhm_wvCWAY+L8V4m99O4u9TA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHOTMVLJOhsPoUDoh176U5iM7cOhm_wvCWAY+L8V4m99O4u9TA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7BAC95F5A7E67643AAFB2C31BEE662D020E29C433BSCVEXCH2marve_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-03-10_08:2015-03-10,2015-03-10,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1503100229
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/lyOSmcLnZWnAVuyBqGHXxikwHJw>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>, "EllipticCurves@nist.gov" <EllipticCurves@nist.gov>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Submission of curve25519 to NIST from CFRG -> was RE: On "non-NIST"
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:27:46 -0000

> I am very curious about this as well. It would make for a very confusing situation if NIST adopted different curves from the CFRG curves.
Yes.  I assume that there will be individual advocates submitting curves to the NIST workshop proposing curve25519 and likely other curves.  Such individual presentations lack the strength of a group recommendation.

It would best for the industry to have a clear statement made by the CFRG Chairs of this research groups determination of consensus on the use of curve25519.  NIST does do a good job of documenting their recommendations and hopefully they will take curve25519 into their fold.

Paul

From: Tony Arcieri [mailto:bascule@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:17 PM
To: Paul Lambert
Cc: Igoe, Kevin M.; Alexey Melnikov; Paterson, Kenny; cfrg@irtf.org; EllipticCurves@nist.gov
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Submission of curve25519 to NIST from CFRG -> was RE: On "non-NIST"

I am very curious about this as well. It would make for a very confusing situation if NIST adopted different curves from the CFRG curves.

--
Tony Arcieri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email