Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST"
Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> Wed, 25 February 2015 19:32 UTC
Return-Path: <paul@marvell.com>
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 6E08B1A86FE for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:32:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YGxlFE5NGxqo for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.148.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68E2A1A86DF for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t1PJTtt1028536; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:31:55 -0800
Received: from sc-owa.marvell.com ([199.233.58.135]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1spfpbxk3y-2 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:31:55 -0800
Received: from SC-vEXCH2.marvell.com ([10.93.76.134]) by SC-OWA.marvell.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:31:53 -0800
From: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>
To: "stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "paul.hoffman@vpnc.org" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:31:52 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST"
Thread-Index: AdBRMbTrZjTaDaEUSIG1FUJPnGwthQ==
Message-ID: <D1135B9A.5C434%paul@marvell.com>
References: <54EDDBEE.5060904@isode.com> <54EDEE67.1010102@cs.tcd.ie> <D02DF679-9485-467F-A47C-FFF15139278B@vpnc.org> <q0xidr.nkcbrp.2vaesh-qmf@mercury.scss.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <q0xidr.nkcbrp.2vaesh-qmf@mercury.scss.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-02-25_07:2015-02-25,2015-02-25,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1502250203
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/v3CBQZw-m5sEYYtpY44OTygKvQ4>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST"
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: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:32:02 -0000
On 2/25/15, 10:38 AM, "stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > >On Wed Feb 25 18:05:47 2015 GMT, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Feb 25, 2015, at 7:46 AM, Stephen Farrell >><stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> > I do "prefer" that CFRG document only one of those as being >> > the usual non-NIST choice for >128 bit work factor. >> >> The term "non-NIST" is predictive, and the crypto community kinda sucks >>at predictions. We have no idea what NIST will do in the future if a >>bunch of IETF WGs adopt specific elliptic curves that are not P256/P384. >>Unfortunately, I suspect current NIST folks also have no idea what NIST >>will do in that case either. In the past, NIST has sometimes (but not >>always) responded to pressure from the real world about crypto >>algorithms and modes; let's hope for the best here. > >Sure, I agree it'd be good if NIST also annoint the output from this cfrg >process. But right now non-NIST is the correct distinguishing term for >what I meant. I see no reason that term will be needed in an RFC though >if that helps assuage some sensitivity somewhere in the universe :-) Branding is very important Š "non-NIST" is adversarial and will discourage adoption. NIST is also not the only Government agency recommending specific curve parameters. The NIST and other recommended Small Weierstrass curves are all based on the late 90¹s technology and requirements. The CFRG recommendations for Œnew curves¹ represent significant improvements based on more contemporary mathematical techniques and industry requirements. The well identified benefits and more modern aspects of the recommendations should be emphasized. Paul > >S. > > >> >> --Paul Hoffma >_______________________________________________ >Cfrg mailing list >Cfrg@irtf.org >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
- [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred curves … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Adam Langley
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Simon Josefsson
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Derek Atkins
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Damien Miller
- [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" stephen.farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Alyssa Rowan
- Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" Tony Arcieri
- Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" Tony Arcieri
- Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST" Damien Miller
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Dan Brown
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Dan Harkins
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… _MiW
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Rene Struik
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… David Leon Gil
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Andy Lutomirski
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Andrey Jivsov
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… David Gil
- Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred cur… Benjamin Beurdouche
- [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves - pre… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves -… Benjamin Black
- Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves -… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves -… Michael Hamburg
- Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves -… Benjamin Black
- Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves -… Benjamin Black
- Re: [Cfrg] Comb algorithm IPR status (was: Result… Alyssa Rowan
- Re: [Cfrg] Comb algorithm IPR status (was: Result… Benjamin Black
- Re: [Cfrg] Comb algorithm IPR status Mike Hamburg
- Re: [Cfrg] Comb algorithm IPR status Alyssa Rowan
- Re: [Cfrg] Comb algorithm IPR status Benjamin Black
- Re: [Cfrg] Comb algorithm IPR status Benjamin Black