Re: [Cfrg] Elliptic Curves - poll on specific curve around 256bit work factor (ends on February 23rd)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Paterson, Kenny <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> On 20/02/2015 06:53, "Tony Arcieri" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> ><[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >CFRG chairs are starting another poll:
> >
> >Q3: (For people who want CFRG to recommend a curve at 256bit level) Is
> >bandwidth cost of going to p521 worth the speed win over primes closer to
> >512 bits?
> >
> >
> >
> >Have you considered doing a poll of what specific curves people actually
> >want to use?
> >
>
> Yes, we considered a number of different ways of narrowing down our
> choices. However, we settled on doing it this way. Please stick with us.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kenny
>
>
Well maybe if we had discussed it first. As it is your poll completely
mis-states the reasons people prefer 512 over 521. Which rather undercuts
the whole process.

The way I would do this is as a Quaker poll asking people what their
preferred outcome is and what they can live with on 448, 480, 512 and 521.

448 - No
480 - Acceptable
512 - Preferred
521 - No

This is meant to be a consensus process and we should be using consensus
seeking tools wherever possible. Votes for the best outcome are not the
best way to come to consensus.