Re: [Cfrg] ECC reboot (Was: When's the decision?)

["Paterson, Kenny" <[e-mail]>]

Johannes,

Thanks for the pointer to this document. Everyone should read it to get a
hardware-centric perspective on the problem we are trying to solve.

What would now be really helpful would be if you could distill the entire
5-page document into a couple of succinct sentences that we can then
debate as possible hardware-specific requirements for our process - see
this post for examples of the kind of level of detail we're looking for
here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg05068.html


Thanks,

Kenny 

On 16/10/2014 17:26, "Johannes Merkle" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>with respect to the second issue, we have just published a common
>position paper of the ECC Brainpool on the
>requirements for new curves.
>http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/832
>Most, if not all, arguments have been expressed on this list before, but
>this is a consolidated statement.
>
>Johannes
>
>PS: The paper has already been submitted two weeks ago and had been stuck
>in the queue at the IACR editors until now.
>
>Paterson, Kenny wrote on 16.10.2014 18:08:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Watson rightly pointed out that we are far behind the originally
>> advertised schedule for our process for selection of curves to recommend
>> to the TLS WG. Other parties in and beyond IETF are waiting on our
>> recommendations too.
>> 
>> The reasons for the delay are quite complex, and I won't go into
>>reviewing
>> them here. Suffice to say we've had a lot of really informative
>>technical
>> discussion about performance of the different options, benchmarking,
>>etc,
>> so the slippage has not exactly been wasted.
>> 
>> Our first task should be to finalise the requirements that we will use
>>to
>> guide the selection process. I think we are close, with a couple of
>> outstanding issues:
>> 
>> 1. Amount of "wiggle room" that should be permitted.
>> 
>> 2. A more nuanced set of hardware requirements.
>> 
>> 
>> I suggest we use the next *week* to try to finalise the requirements,
>>and
>> then November to evaluate the candidates that we currently have (along
>> with any new candidates that might emerge) against the final set of
>> requirements. 
>> 
>> With this schedule, we'd miss the IETF 91 meeting for our decision, but
>>I
>> don't think having our answer by mid-Novmeber is really feasible. We
>> should certainly be able to deliver an early Christmas present to the
>>TLS
>> WG.
>> 
>> To make this work, we'd need the RG to focus on the requirements for a
>> short additional period of time.
>> 
>> So here's a proposal for a new schedule which I believe to be feasible:
>> 
>> 24/10/14 (1 week from now): we finalise requirements, including hardware
>> requirements.
>> 31/10/14 (2 weeks from now): we agree on whatever benchmarking system
>> we're going to use for performance measurements. (Right now, supercop
>> seems like the front runner to me.)
>> 30/11/14 (6 weeks from now): we deliver our recommendations to the TLS
>>WG.
>> 
>> Could people let me know if this looks workable, within the next 24-48
>> hours? Meantime, I'll send a message indicating where things stand on
>>the
>> requirements list.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Kenny 
>> 
>> 
>> On 06/10/2014 16:26, "Watson Ladd" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> We were promised on July 27 a process running for 6 weeks. Doubling I
>>> get 12 weeks, which is three months, of which two (August, September)
>>> have already gone. Am I correct in supposing that we're on track for a
>>> decision by Halloween?
>>>
>>> If we aren't, what remaining issues need to be addressed/when can we
>>> expect a decision?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Watson Ladd
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>> 
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>Dr. Johannes Merkle
>Principal Beratung, Elektronische Identitäten
>Public Sector
>secunet Security Networks AG
>Mergenthaler Allee 77
>65760 Eschborn
>Germany
>Telefon [phone]
>Telefax [phone]
>Mobil   [phone]
>[e-mail]
>www.secunet.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cfrg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg