IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]

Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> Tue, 02 December 2014 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bascule@gmail.com>
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 7C6151A0053 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:28:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ANR0mIIVZoRC for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253211A0029 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f54.google.com with SMTP id u20so8460432oif.27 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:28:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=+6We1LvmGdrpGxVjOBtXBEsgip5RQaCWsfvsgfSaYKc=; b=gZ4+fApZguBUGtH+cl9Cz/HC73y2clF0I91VR8N5FRnRjbh/QJwZFytxjBV0fQtVOf MX6CAQmn08DKWDS38vs+EyK9pqYilh0BGx9xEzv0wD8ETZjy/K9oFA18WNo2zbE5tf4c FPY7Mhrh3NkG9LJPKo+sZZ2jBNJFPc/nAQKZzlh+5D0mMJzFulP1RFQGBjr8IawYQUuz xoB1+QgMT5KY5LcZsygoTOk/FL0aGSAaHBx9D7Zr/4tjv2SHf5RUa2O+5KNOMv8UMnkw RyQhsAe/rUHtRg9gavYdUWHEY8S8++UZLgkMK9Q18dCnduQfSns+OwaEkLq+O5caeTM2 jrNw==
X-Received: by 10.182.130.232 with SMTP id oh8mr38767898obb.49.1417487281358; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:28:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.81.233 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:27:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Vbu7yuDncMwiAhQiDUR=LW-Rd4WU=BgaD_G+akS4JROoy1ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+Vbu7xvvfRWyqyE9sqU7VbjzNQZp+DwRWjaV3Lw0hjLr8ye1A@mail.gmail.com> <5476CB73.7090206@akr.io> <CAMfhd9XxkZsVPMcevWOgvvqbBK0JqLVCGBYfwWu0QFO5rsfbJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABqy+sodVBbwNrA28AFxYMiw5rJxtUX3cbYCjtrYxK-48Ocd6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMfhd9VF784rJ5gXiLkB6DdwS+zAi=GDgT=792jQ=+oqcK_F3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+Vbu7yuDncMwiAhQiDUR=LW-Rd4WU=BgaD_G+akS4JROoy1ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:27:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHOTMVJi2N8vg=eB-sKRPmTWPk3gKYXdbdu-N65veBUQjJishA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a03c6e1106105093279a1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/qSo5cBFbWYLPCq8CVQqq9ZBhfD0
Cc: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] draft-black-rpgecc-00-.txt [was: Consensus and a way forward]
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 02:28:04 -0000

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us> wrote:

> Several of the responses to this proposal leave me a bit confused as it
> appears they were written without having read the draft. If your
> perspective is that Curve25519 must be adopted, and under no circumstances
> will alternatives be considered, then it will be difficult to reach an
> accommodation.
>

Can you please respond to djb's concerns about twist security?


> If instead you are interested in achieving consensus, the first step
> should be understanding alternative viewpoints and considering how we might
> find a middle ground. The draft documents such a middle ground.
>

The draft overlooks djb's concerns. At the very least it should give a
counterpoint to djb's arguments.

-- 
Tony Arcieri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email