Re: [Cfrg] [TLS] Unwarrented change to point formats

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>


> > To take a specific set of cases. TLS has three major uses for public key
>  > crypto of this type:
> >
> > - Key establishment
> > - Digital signatures over handshake messages (ServerKeyExchange,
> >   CertificateVerify, etc.)
> > - Digital signatures over certificates.
> >
> > It seems likely that key establishment shares common requirements for
> > multiple protocols. Similarly, it would be quite convenient if the
> > signatures
> > used in TLS were the same as those used for the certificates used for
> TLS,
> > even though the latter are not defined in TLS. So, when I say an
> IETF-wide
> > set of recommendations that's the kind of thing I mean.
> >
> > I wasn't aware that any of this was particularly controversial.
>
> You had a draft in hand, got a reply that "yeah, looks good", and then
> went back to ask for
> a completely different design process, for reasons never discussed.
> It's the second round
> that's confusing me.
>

This does not match my understanding of the history.

Rather, here's my memory:

1. We asked the CFRG for a recommendation.

2. The CFRG held an interim discussion where a lot of good things
were said about Curve25519 but the CFRG never made a recommendation
to the TLS WG, but instead said it would come back and make
a recommendation.

3. The TLS Chairs sent the CFRG chairs a written request to make
such a recommendation (my memory is that they actually asked us
to write something down, but I don't immediately see it in my mail.)

Which brings us to the current process being run in CFRG.

-Ekr