Re: [TLS] Correction: early codepoint assignment for Curve25519, Curve448, Ed25519 and Ed448

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

> On 12 Jan 2016, at 21:31, Ilari Liusvaara <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:21:21PM +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12 Jan 2016, at 9:26 PM, Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The same concern still applies: what does it mean to allocate code
>>> point for the 4492bis-05 description?
>> 
>> Allocating code points just means an implementation of draft-05 is
>> likely to interoperate just fine with an implementation of the final
>> RFC.
>> 
>> Of course nothing is ever final until the RFC is out, so there’s
>> always a risk involved, but it is considered prudent to allocate
>> numbers when we’re reasonably certain of the calculations and on-
>> the-wire formats. Any debate about whether we should or should not
>> check certain inputs for certain conditions need not be a bar for
>> allocating numbers.
> 
> Assuming CFRG chairs really did declare consensus on Ed448 hash, then
> the final characteristics of Ed448 are known and I have a reference
> implementation.
> 
> And the PKIX draft looks implementable (has wrong example?)
> 
> More serious interop hazard is what to do with X25519/X448 and THS
> (some of the proposed stuff is not wire-compatible).

This CFRG co-chair would like to see an updated CFRG draft before the code point is allocated.