Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption draft-josefsson-tls-curve25519

[Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]>]

Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> writes:

> Me too.
>
> I notice that while the draft doesn’t say that explicitly, it uses
> existing *_ECDHE_* ciphersuites, so that no new ciphersuites are
> required, despite the fact that this ECDHE has different point formats
> and different back-end math than the existing ECDHE.  I wonder if we
> can also get away with using *ECDSA* ciphersuites for EdDSA
> signatures.

This is an interesting idea, thanks for mentioning that.  It would ugly
for "ECDSA" in a cipher suite name to not actually mean that ECDSA is
used, but it is a valid engineering tradeoff to sometimes prefer ugly
things that simplify over beautiful things that complicate.

/Simon

> Yoav
>
>> On May 20, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> I am in favor of adopting this draft.
>> 
>> -Ekr
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Joseph Salowey <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> This is the WG call for adoption of:
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-josefsson-tls-curve25519-06.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-josefsson-tls-curve25519-06.txt>
>> 
>> This draft specifies the use of Curve25519 for ephemeral key
>> exchange in the TLS and DTLS.  This draft serves as the starting
>> point (it’s expired and needs to be updated in light of
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-curves/
>> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-curves/>).  If you
>> object to the adoption of this draft, please let us know why by
>> 20150602.
>> 
>> Note: We’re not doing an early code point assignment for this draft,
>> because it clearly needs to resurrected and tweaked.  Once that
>> happens, there’s nothing stopping a request from the authors for an
>> early code point assignment.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> J/S
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>