Re: [Cfrg] Brazil Curves -> Re: Safecurves draft redux

Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <synp71@live.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 AFF481A0063 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:28:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 nlfQZ4StkMxF for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s33.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s33.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACDA1A0061 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP23 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s33.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:28:00 -0800
X-TMN: [JauPBnWV7y9OGu7dASO6V1J4chpwIxA2]
X-Originating-Email: [synp71@live.com]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP23ECA9EAC235A64E24D5FEB1A40@phx.gbl>
Received: from ynir-MBA.local ([194.29.32.131]) by BLU0-SMTP23.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:27:58 -0800
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:27:56 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
References: <CF02C06C.2CD92%paul@marvell.com> <CACsn0c=n05CHkZNNUC1HsZynXLnL7khf6dDOeP=K_M3J+cygNg@mail.gmail.com> <0b4582c1fd97f55cedc9e0104889a365.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <0b4582c1fd97f55cedc9e0104889a365.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080502040603080609050206"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2014 07:27:58.0543 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F11EDF0:01CF167A]
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Brazil Curves -> Re: Safecurves draft redux
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: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:28:01 -0000

On 21/1/14 12:59 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> On Mon, January 20, 2014 2:28 pm, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com> wrote:
>>> More of the curves seem appear to have come from Brazil (not necessarily
>>> the movie) than Chicago.
>>>
>>> There was a thread on clear naming conventions that has some consensus
>>> that did not add confusion by creating cute names.  Could we please
>>> proceed with a consensus based draft.
>> Naming them E or M then prime description would work. We would also need a
>> T. So far I've resisted renaming from the SAFECURVES names, but that
>> will change since
>> we need to invent some.
>>
>> As for naming the whole set, that's where Chicago comes in. Brainpool
>> is certainly not
>> a cute name, but I doubt the mental images were in the naming process.
>>
>> We aren't even at a point where I have something I would sent to Last
>> Call. I have
>> some edits to make (see TE25519 discussion where I screwed it up),
>> and with the start
>> of the semester haven't had time to do this yet.
>    You seem to think that the next step is Last Call. Please peruse the
> RFC database and note the revision of the last draft prior to publication
> as an RFC. You'll find many that have double-digit revisions. And you'll
> note that very few have an -01 revision.
>
>    It is very helpful in this consensus-based development process to
> produce a draft for everyone to read that incorporates a slew of
> comments you received. That way we can see how it reads after the
> comments were resolved and possibly suggest how to further improve
> it, resulting in another version. Holding on to a draft until you personally
> feel that it is ready for Last Call is likely to blow up in your face.
>
>    If you want this published in an I{E|R}TF stream then please follow
> the process for working on a draft. Github is not an appropriate
> substitute.

A substitute - no, but GitHub can be a useful tool when multiple people 
contribute text. As an example, the http2 draft is being edited in 
GitHub with the various contributors making suggestions ("pull 
requests") there. The discussion is mostly done on the mailing list, but 
GitHub is far from useless.

Yoav