Archive

On Mon, January 19, 2015 4:27 am, Alyssa Rowan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 19 January 2015 11:56:27 GMT+00:00, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
> <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> wrote:
>> [â¦] Is the use of little endian format here a deliberate design
>> decision?
>
> Probably yes, to match every existing implementation of Curve25519 already
> in the wild (and most commonly-used architectures)?

  So a long-standing tradition of the on-the-wire format is changed because
of the way the first curve25519 library was written? That's a weak
justification.

  Dan.

> TLS WG give new curves free reign on point format, explicitly not SEC1
> constrained. They preferred little endian (weakly) for the above reason, I
> believe?
>
> - --
> /akr
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: APG v1.1.1
>
> iQI3BAEBCgAhBQJUvPgjGhxBbHlzc2EgUm93YW4gPGFrckBha3IuaW8+AAoJEOyE
> jtkWi2t6zMYP/1zfZqPArx93uuddYNhL3FoApKh8rUmpJydhlVfAenxK7pfT7FjC
> 17g2xFE5dHdA+RZEduf4YDqvQHN8DUWFe9v/pQtq/ev6Ety66CsBG1PV/sQ2hF7f
> 474TKgp9S5ADndNttzD+AZx7JG1xiwvPoXp5BtY86R8tPNG+sfnOB+4Vxl9F7XPC
> Cboi942fAlO4F5WxFxJhb8ZY0O9B0MDtfKZVg3SEkyZq+moGGjVwndlcBa26e5+S
> iKQeyEXl1yGthSt3Pp7WGFnhu86Ul6/2cC1FmlmOTpXu8RRW3idvwF8Au5VJaJ5s
> JEYRAN1FrT9U6Bdrjfs5VZHeQkhSK0jzRlnRFD2VsyBClRwmFDmuODiqJoWkiYHX
> qTuZOwvyyqLFgAXgwm+uovTkIjrgKWam66G2ptAUacV3cqhiX0/VdGJIk+Hw2xTd
> C95oSiIMw5vHQWuUWvCVh4s7G2kf5+nf930c3MRm4q1IdlFihvjVuLTP0uS8YMgb
> 5EI/kpCEso6d3foVUTkTbLbe9rXm1AJtL9N7QJ1KdKGXtsHmhMkFjPijE1B3qvB4
> aRzjEGoVV48j3yxM68SjyV38TgqvMwzi2qmoXZGeBocynIq+jT05F+d8K3ibUCgV
> 2ZrKaWIinQs4JQ5Meu3UE0IMcpBQQ0/YE/XE4Y6AUWjyde/mR6nHE+F5
> =RTzy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>

Re: [Cfrg] Point format endian (was: Adoption of draft-ladd-spake2 as a RG document)