Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness
Tanja Lange <tanja@hyperelliptic.org> Tue, 29 April 2014 00:10 UTC
Return-Path: <tanja@hyperelliptic.org>
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 6F0571A8841 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 q8V2u2sVFEG9 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mace.cs.uic.edu (mace.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DB4CD1A6F17 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15852 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2014 00:10:02 -0000
Received: from pcdhz005.win.tue.nl (HELO hyperelliptic.org) (131.155.71.33) by mace.cs.uic.edu with SMTP; 29 Apr 2014 00:10:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 17166 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Apr 2014 00:09:54 -0000
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 02:09:54 +0200
From: Tanja Lange <tanja@hyperelliptic.org>
To: David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20140429000954.GH1529@cph.win.tue.nl>
References: <CACsn0ck+8Rhxc1_4bp9za7n+Pe5Oan755CoxBs1ZnPFuruG6OQ@mail.gmail.com> <28EB012B-C9FE-4CF4-A039-E9DA5ECCD787@vpnc.org> <20140316114946.GR5925@cph.win.tue.nl> <3C4AAD4B5304AB44A6BA85173B4675CABAA36068@MSMR-GH1-UEA03.corp.nsa.gov> <535E7F3B.2020805@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <535E7F3B.2020805@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/r6hm0ulh1YivaVNNBgRbpU3_64k
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness
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, 29 Apr 2014 00:10:05 -0000
> >How old are Jacobi co-ordinates? If they were invented by Jacobi himself, > >we're probably on firm ground here. > > thanks for doing this; I suggest reference [CC1986] of that RFC as a > good place to start. > They appear all over the place, e.g. in Miller's Crypto'85 paper and the Chudnovsky-Chudnovsky-86 paper; not necessarily under the name Jacobian coordinates. The latter paper writes (p. 413) "4.2. (a) For the Weierstrass equation (a), the traditional choice of the homogeneous coordinates is x = X/Z^2, y = Y/Z^3." Tanja
- [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Tanja Lange
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Tanja Lange
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Igoe, Kevin M.
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness David McGrew
- Re: [Cfrg] RFC 6090 correctness Tanja Lange