Re: [IPsec] I-D on Using the ECC Brainpool Curves for IKEv2 Key Exchange

["David McGrew (mcgrew)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Johannes,

Some quick comments:

I strongly encourage you to remove the "Compressed" point format.  Doing
so will minimize the changes between RFC 5903 and make the draft easier to
support, and improve the overall implementation by making it simpler.
Also, it is not clear that there is any advantage to the "compressed"
format.   It saves at most 64 bytes in total for a complete IKEv2 key
establishment, and since IKEv2 exchanges typically send a lot more data
than that, it sounds like a false economy to add complexity in order to
avoid a little bit of data.

The paragraph starting "The corresponding twisted curves ..." is a
distinct and self-contained topic.  I suggest putting it into its own
section.  


In some places, the draft gives [SEC1] as a normative reference, where
RFC6090 is also applicable (Sections 4.1 and 6 apply jn Section 2.2 of
draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool, for instance).

David

On 11/5/12 8:35 AM, "Johannes Merkle" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>We have submitted a new revision of the Internet Draft Using the ECC
>Brainpool Curves (defined in RFC 5639) for IKEv2
>Key Exchange
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool/
>
>Last week, this draft has also been submitted to the Independent
>Submission Editor.
>
>The draft specifies 4 new code points for the IKEv2 transform ID registry
>(224, 256, 384 and 512 bit curve) and
>specifies the encoding of the KE payload with and without point
>compression. The test vectors are shared with Dan's
>draft on IKEv1 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-01. I have
>removed the "twisted curves" and
>included a note how to use them internally (for efficient implementation)
>using input / output transformations.
>
>Any feedback is welcome.
>
>-- 
>Johannes
>_______________________________________________
>IPsec mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec