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.
>>>
>>
>>