Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft

[Bodo Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Paul Lambert <[e-mail]>:


> This need not be an issue if the new names are clearly distinguishable
> and mapped to the old names.  For example: 'secp256r1' is identical to
> the later 'nistP521'
>
> I suggest that we reuse a similar nomenclature.  It would make the new
> curves
> look like equals in notation, provide a consistent nomenclature,
> And the postfix 'r1', 'r2' notation is handy for new parameters or
> generator
> points in the same curve/field.
>
> Proposal:
>  - first four characters define the curve type/equation/math/etc
>  - next 3 or more numbers are the field size
>  - next characters carry an 'r' followed by a revision indication
>
> curve3617 -> edwp414r1
>

"r1" in SECG curves indicates that it's "random" curve number 1 (as opposed
to "k1", which would be a Koblitz curve).  Of course the new names don't
have to look anything like SECG curve names, but if they do, that very
different meaning for a very similar postfix could end up causing some
confusion.  So I think you might want to adjust the proposal to
give curve3617 a name of the form "...p414ed1" instead.

Bodo