Re: [Cfrg] Requirements for new curves

"Paterson, Kenny" <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk> Sun, 31 August 2014 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
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 D8ECA1A9046 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 YHBwCnpkZ7RD for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3lrp0079.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E12031A9045 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DBXPR03MB383.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.10.15) by DBXPR03MB381.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.10.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:05:27 +0000
Received: from DBXPR03MB383.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.10.15]) by DBXPR03MB383.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.10.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1015.018; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:05:23 +0000
From: "Paterson, Kenny" <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: Requirements for new curves
Thread-Index: AQHPxV9HQz6qJCUM5kWS8b0yKY7BNw==
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:05:23 +0000
Message-ID: <D0294A83.2BE58%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [92.3.211.201]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0320B28BE1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(189002)(199003)(107886001)(2351001)(106116001)(21056001)(2656002)(83506001)(36756003)(83322001)(110136001)(50986999)(99396002)(54356999)(105586002)(106356001)(107046002)(74502001)(85306004)(81342001)(81542001)(80022001)(66066001)(4396001)(20776003)(64706001)(561944003)(101416001)(92726001)(85852003)(92566001)(83072002)(74662001)(31966008)(79102001)(74482001)(46102001)(76482001)(77982001)(95666004)(86362001)(90102001)(87936001)(2501002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR03MB381; H:DBXPR03MB383.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F2712A3D27DAA9428C9E57CE13B3CE95@eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: rhul.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/vGH_79Rum9aiiNyVGNN_8nciljc
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requirements for new curves
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: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 21:05:29 -0000

Dear all,

I've spent today reviewing all the messages to CFRG on new curves - those
concerning requirements (our current phase of enquiry), and more
generally. It's been interesting and informative. I want to thank everyone
who has participated to date. It seems (to me at least) that almost
everything that could be said about requirements has now been said. The
traffic on the list on this topic has also slowed markedly, another sign
that this phase is reaching a natural conclusion.

In the next day or two, I will send to the list a proposal for a list of
requirements that we will use for the second phase of our investigation:
selecting curves to recommend to the TLS WG. I've made careful notes on
all the contributions to the requirements discussion, and my sense it that
we do have a rough consensus concerning what these requirements should be.

NB: I use the word "rough" deliberately here - in looking over the
messages to the list, of course I can see frequent disagreements about
requirements, but in each case, sufficiently many independent views have
been expressed one way or another that a *rough* consensus is clear on
pretty much every issue of substance, even if a perfect harmony of views
has not been expressed.

So, more news from me soon...

Best regards,

Kenny