- From: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@nadim.cc>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:30:20 -0400
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > Just to close the loop on this: There's no spec action required at this time. > > If/When the WG introduces additional curves - such as Curve25519 - the spec can be updated to move the ECPoint conversion into handling the key-specific bits. Following up on this — why wasn’t Curve25519 included in the initial spec? I’m simply curious since a lot of protocols depend on it. Regards, NK > > Curve25519 is also something that would prohibit the ECDSA signatures that follow X9.62, so a spec update is required anyways. > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote: > As a heads up for those not following the cfrg mailing list at the IETF. > > > > It is possible that we will need to make the ECPoint typedef be a property of the curve rather than the algorithm name. There are discussions about the curve Curve25519 and it’s point representation which do not use the X9.62 specification and in fact are specified as being little endian rather than big endian. (They are looking at only passing the x if I understand things correctly but that is a big if at this point.) > > > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tls/11878 > > > > jim > > > >
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2014 01:30:48 UTC