Re: [Cfrg] Editing work on github of draft-ladd-safecurves

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <mpg@elzevir.fr> wrote:
> On 12/01/2014 18:00, =JeffH wrote:
>>  > some
>>  > people want something ala RFC 6090, while I want to avoid massive
>>  > bloat with implementation details that anyone implementing this draft
>>  > probably knows anyway.
>>
>> Perhaps citing RFC 6090 as appropriate would allay those concerns?
>>
> RFC 6090 is about curves in short Weierstrass form, which the curve from the
> draft are not. (Of course you could convert them to short Weierstrass, but that
> would not be a good idea.)

I'm sure someone out there will do it, even though I've given them all
the details of better
multiplication algorithms in the github draft. It would be a clever
way to reintroduce weaknesses
that the current curve shapes avoid, and if you don't give your
customers the source, they would
never know.

RFC6090 was also published to avoid Certicom IPR and document
algorithms that were unpatented.
But with Montgomery curves there is none of that:
the necessary formulas appear in a paper published in 1985.

Anyway, if you think we need more implementor guidance, feel free to
send me a diff. In about a week this should
stabilize enough to be the basis for more IETF/IRTF actions, like
getting the OIDs.

Sincerely,
Watson

>
> Manuel.
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Re: [Cfrg] Editing work on github of draft-ladd-safecurves - References