IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] EC signature: next steps

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Fri, 04 September 2015 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=66896595dd=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 3CAB71B2CE3 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 rrT9wm0PdDTM for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.ll.mit.edu (MX1.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F6D1B2CDD for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local) by mx1.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id t84LAD1S023519; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:10:14 -0400
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, William Whyte <wwhyte@securityinnovation.com>, Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] EC signature: next steps
Thread-Index: AdDnVhcf0+OBS3Ns50qZf3WjCbEV4A==
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:10:13 +0000
Message-ID: <20150904211015.17788996.54001.20960@ll.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="===============0253872836=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-09-04_10:2015-09-04,2015-09-04,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1508030000 definitions=main-1509040333
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/p_UZsE8MF8TlAKCKV4wjXAxXvEw>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] EC signature: next steps
X-BeenThere: cfrg@mail.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.mail.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@mail.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@mail.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@mail.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@mail.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:10:22 -0000

I see your point. But I don't see what makes the next few weeks crucial as opposed to the weeks before and after this period.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
  Original Message  
From: Stephen Farrell
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 16:38
To: Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL; William Whyte; Rene Struik; Alexey Melnikov; cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] EC signature: next steps



On 04/09/15 21:26, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
> It took us all a while to get here. If it takes a bit longer to get it
> right, so be it.
> 
> There’s ECDSA and EC-KCDSA for those who can’t wait any longer. :-) Not
> to mention [F]HMQV. :-)
> 

Being any slower here IMO risks implementations for a number of
protocols shipping with Ed25519, causing confusion and possible
interop issues. The issue is simply whether or not CFRG's work
will be overtaken by events. I hope that won't happen and have
been asking folks within IETF WGs to please hold off. But they
won't forever, and a number of folks have expressed frustration
at how long this is taking. Taking longer certainly increases
the liklihood of this work being OBE.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email