Re: [Cfrg] Conclusions: poll about curve around 256bit work factor

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 23/02/2015 21:22, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 08:58:54PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>  From responses and discussions on the mailing list it is clear that there is rough consensus against using curve 512-C. However, part of the responders said that they prefer 521 (the original Q3 asked), while other responded to extended list suggested by Phillip.
>>
>> Based on answers chairs declare CFRG consensus against the curve 512 being in the CFRG recommendation at the 256 WF level. Other curves (521, 448, etc) still remain as contenders for the CFRG recommendation.
> Could you next time please ask what you want really want to ask?
> You've asked about speed vs bandwidth, which clearly is not the
> only thing people are concerned about.  There might be a consensus
> to prefer 521 over 512, but it's not what you asked.
Ok, maybe the question was not well thought, but that was the main 
factor raised earlier to decide between 521 and 512.
> Maybe it could help that you propose the question first so that we give feedback on that?
Will do, although some of the followup questions are a bit more obvious.