Re: [Cfrg] BLS Signature for X.509

CFRG just recommended 2 non-NIST curves at the request of the TLS working
group. At least one of those curves is widely deployed for kex and
signatures in multiple protocols. Lack of NIST blessing is no longer an
impediment to adoption.

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Paul Grubbs <pag225@cornell.edu> wrote:

> The IETF does play an important role in the process, but most people (at
> least in the US) won't consider anything in crypto 'standardized' unless it
> involves NIST.
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> hi Paul,
>>
>> thanks. Isn’t where this group can help though (namely standardization) ?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> antonio
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Paul Grubbs <pag225@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> BLS signatures would be nice for many reasons. The lack of standardized
>> pairing groups makes it a little difficult from a deployability
>> perspective, I think.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> anyome :S ?
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > hi *,
>>> >
>>> > sorry for the noise.
>>> > I was wondering if it was already discussed the idea to use BSL
>>> Signature for X.509.
>>> > AFAIK this will avoid certificate chains thanks to the signature
>>> aggregation property…
>>> > If this was already discussed I apologize.
>>> > If not WDYT about this?
>>> >
>>> > regards
>>> >
>>> > antonio
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Cfrg mailing list
>>> > Cfrg@irtf.org
>>> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>