RE: [W3C Web Crypto WG] CfC : Call for Consensus on the integration of curve25519 in WG deliverables (please vote until the 26th of August)

I think its a somewhat substantially backwards approach to API design, but
I can live with this if the WG so decides.
On Aug 13, 2014 1:08 AM, "GALINDO Virginie" <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
wrote:

>  Richard,
>
> Thanks for that input.
>
>
>
> All,
>
> A possible action to avoid interfering with that IETF / CFRG discussion,
> could be to send an official message to IETF/CFRG
>
> (1) mentioning that we are preparing the integration of next generation
> curves in W3C Web Crypto API, which explains why there are draft
> contributions circulating in our Web Crypto WG, but
>
> (2) clarifying that we are expecting their final decision and
> recommendation to actually  finalize our deliverables.
>
> Which is something I believe everyone agreed, during the call this week.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Virginie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:rlb@ipv.sx]
> *Sent:* mardi 12 août 2014 17:51
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi
> *Cc:* GALINDO Virginie; Wendy Seltzer; hhalpin@w3.org; webcrypto@trevp.net;
> public-webcrypto@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] CfC : Call for Consensus on the
> integration of curve25519 in WG deliverables (please vote until the 26th of
> August)
>
>
>
> I don't disagree with you on the merits.  There is running code for
> Curve25519.  In the spirit of limiting curve proliferation, though, I would
> prefer that we keep the focus on the CFRG-selected curves (assuming the
> process works).  That could very well result in renewed focus on Curve25519
> a little later.
>
> My main point is just that this is a really bad time to be deciding on
> which curves to support.  There's already one such fight going on in CFRG.
> Let's let that play out before we make our decisions.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> It seems that, independent of CFRG/TLSes decision, Trevor's point about a
> non-trivial amount of code using Curve25519 still stands. This is
> fundamentally different than NUMS, on many layers. It seems useful to
> expose, even if TLs (one particular WG) or CFRG (making recommendations for
> new protocols/EC alternatives) goes elsewhere.
>
> But a +1 to the proposal.
>
> On Aug 12, 2014 8:38 AM, "Richard Barnes" <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>
> -1
>
> Strong -1.  We should not be balloting on specific curves right now,
> either NUMS or Curve25519.  We should agree on the principle that we will
> support the next generation curves that CFRG and TLS agree on, and work to
> support that once it's decided.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:22 AM, GALINDO Virginie <
> Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I would like to call for consensus on the way we will move forward with
> the contribution provided by Trevor Perrin describing Curve25519 operation
> [1]. We discussed several options and I would like to submit the following
> resolution to your vote.
>
>
>
> *Proposed resolution : the WG agrees on the principle that Curve25519 will
> be added to Web Crypto WG deliverables as an extension to the Web Crypto
> API specification. An extension being here a separate specification having
> its own Recommendation Track.*
>
>
>
> Deadline : votes have to be expressed expected until 26th of August 23:59
> UTC
>
> Guideline for voting : reply to all to this mail, indicating, +1 if you
> agree with the resolution, -1 means if you object, 0 if you can live with
> it. While silence means implicit endorsement of the resolution, explicit
> expression of vote is encouraged, to help the chair measuring the
> enthusiasm of the WG participants.
>
>
>
> Note the following additional information :
>
> -          This extension will be used as a beta test for the
> extensibility mechanism that we need to address as raised in bug 25618
>
> -          The proposed editor is Trevor, as long as Trevor agrees to
> maintain the document
>
> -          This resolution does not imply that the draft submitted by
> Trevor is endorsed in its current state, as the WG did not have a chance to
> discuss the content. The discussion about that content can be conducted
> over the mailing list, or during a dedicated call, where we will invite
> Trevor.
>
>
>
> Have a great week !
>
> Virginie
>
> Chair of the Web Crypto WG
>
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Aug/0064.html
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
> *This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible
> to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered,
> changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> message, please delete it and notify the sender. Although all reasonable
> efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the
> sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus.*
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for
> the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
> transmitted virus.
>