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

Totally fine with that.  Separate drafts are a great idea.


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> As per my comment on the NUMS curves, what we *can* do in the absence of
> consensus of which curves to adopt when / how is to do the technical work
> in separate Editor's Draft specifications. This would prove out the
> extensibility of the main specification and allow us to move quickly into
> formal process if / when there is consensus on which curves to adopt.
>
> ...Mark
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>