W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > April 2014

Re: EC Point Representations

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:34:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvaGm2YSE3OO+7TnUf5h2q2-KtLDHUY3C60dQEPVCsCKsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@nadim.cc>
Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@nadim.cc> wrote:

> 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
"A lot of protocols" is certainly a bit of a broad statement (and not
entirely accurate, although I suppose the perspective is on what you
measure by 'a lot' and what you consider a 'protocol' - IETF or Joe's
Random Crypto Thing)

Quite simply: Despite the claim of being in 'a lot' of protocols, it's not
actually widely implemented within the UA space. Chromium, for example, is
the only UA that has an implementation, and only through a custom
implementation not generally exposed as part of it's cryptographic services
(eg: what it has built WebCrypto upon)
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2014 01:35:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:02:42 UTC