Re: [Cfrg] Results of the poll: Elliptic Curves - preferred curves around 256bit work factor (ends on March 3rd)

[Benjamin Black <[e-mail]>]

The arguments were suggested on the list, but made explicitly in private
communication. I do not feel comfortable making private communication
public, though I understand this puts me in the minority.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Mar 5, 2015 3:23 PM, "Benjamin Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > What happened to the earlier, vigorous arguments by Robert Ransom,
> Alyssa Rowan and Mike Hamburg that Goldilocks448, and perhaps all of the
> curves based on large primes, would be covered by Microsoft IP?
>
> Were these the arguments made? Or was it that the particular algorithms
> discussed by Microsoft in March were patented?
>
> I don't recall any argument of the first form. Perhaps you can provide a
> link to am email, or a patent number. But I do recall the second.
>
> Sincerely,
> Watson Ladd
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25/02/2015 14:27, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> CFRG chairs are starting another poll:
> >>>
> >>> Q3: This is a Quaker poll (please answer one of "preferred",
> "acceptable" or "no") for each curve specified below:
> >>>
> >>> 1) 448 (Goldilocks)
> >>> 2) 480
> >>> 3) 521
> >>> 4) other curve (please name another curve that you "prefer" or
> "accept", or state "no")
> >>
> >> Thank you for all responses.
> >>
> >> 521 - 6 preferred, 14 - acceptable
> >> 448 - 16 preferred, 4 - acceptable
> >>
> >> Very few prefer others (512 NUMS, 480).
> >>
> >> So CFRG prefers curve 448.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If you stated your curve preferences in the poll that ended on
> February 23rd (see the attachment), you don't need to reply to this poll,
> your opinion is already recorded. But please double check what chairs
> recorded (see the attachment).
> >>>
> >>> If you changed your mind or only answered the question about
> performance versa memory usage for curves 512 and 521, feel free to reply.
> >>>
> >>> Once this issues is settled, we will be discussing (in no particular
> order. Chairs reserve the right to add additional questions) implementation
> specifics and coordinate systems for Diffie-Hellman. We will then make
> decisions on signature schemes. Please don't discuss any of these future
> topics at this time.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Cfrg mailing list
> >>[e-mail]
> >>http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cfrg mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> >
>