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

Simon Josefsson <> Fri, 29 May 2015 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8A31ACE92 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MQzQ3elDnloS for <>; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:9b0:1:1702::100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE2AF1AD09F for <>; Fri, 29 May 2015 14:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id t4TL90Pk013516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 May 2015 23:09:01 +0200
From: Simon Josefsson <>
To: Ilari Liusvaara <>
References: <> <20150520171504.GA21197@LK-Perkele-VII>
OpenPGP: id=54265E8C; url=
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 23:08:58 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20150520171504.GA21197@LK-Perkele-VII> (Ilari Liusvaara's message of "Wed, 20 May 2015 20:15:04 +0300")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption draft-josefsson-tls-curve25519
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 21:09:12 -0000

Ilari Liusvaara <> writes:

> - Add curve448?

Given that it has been added to the CFRG document, I assume that this is
a given.  Right now Ed448-Goldilocks is in
draft-josefsson-tls-additional-curves but it can be moved.

> - Do bit masking like cfrg-curves specifies?

I don't have a strong opinion.  I believe that tls-curve25519 should not
deviate from cfrg-curves on this without a really strong reason.

> - Add zero key check like crfg-curves specifies[1]?


It is not clear to me whether the current wording for this and the
previous issue will remain in the cfrg-curves document though.

> - Why the point format and prefix? Expecting other point formats without
>   new codepoint allocation[2]? Or some software engineering reason?

What would you prefer instead?  Maybe Manuel Pegourie-Gonnard can chime
in here.