Re: [Cfrg] Elliptic Curves - poll on security levels (ends on February 17th)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

Knowing if we are going to do p=~512 or not makes a big difference to what
I would think we should be doing on p=~256.

If we are not doing p=~512 then this is adding one more point to the zoo,
no biggie. If we are doing p=~512 and NOT p=~384 then we are sending a
signal that we are shutting the zoo down and starting over.

To give an opinion on the plan, I want to know what the backup plan is
likely to look like. That does not mean agreeing every detail of the backup
plan.


On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree with this prioritization.  I thought the question that the CFRG
> Co-chair was asking was about the value working on other curves _after_ the
> recommendation for a 128-bit security curve is done.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 10:42 PM, Bindhunadhava wrote:
>
> I agree with Kurt, we MUST get 2^128 recommendation out the door ASAP.
> talking about other levels at this point is a distraction.
> So my answer to both questions is
> NO at this time!
>
>
>   Olafur
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>