Re: Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Additional Curves"

On 03/12/2015 06:28 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> +1
> 
> This is good news, in that it shows that the end is in sight, and there are
> curves.  I would say we're clear to discuss charter work on the new curves
> now, especially if it's at the level of "support the curves agreed by
> CFRG".  But it's still early to start laying down any API.

Note we do have this early draft by Trevor (although representational
details are not specified in as much detail as needed):

http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/trevp/curve25519_webcrypto/blob/master/Curve25519_WebCrypto.html

I realize are still unresolved issues, as noted by the discussions on
CFRG. However, this statement has noted the "additional curve
discussion" has been resolved and the implementation (i.e.
"representation") details will now be handled by a combination of CFRG
and TLS WG. T

In particular, there's numerous things we can do:

1) Nothing.

2) Co-ordinate on details with TLS and CFRG

The latter is what the IETF->W3C liaison statement proposed:

"We would be happy to see W3C work with the IETF and CFRas this work
proceeds to ensure that WebCrypto and TLS expose the same curves and,
insofar as possible, the same algorithms."

Then there are two distinct options if we chose to co-ordinate:

a) Return to Last Call if needed (however, this could take a long time
if representational details aren't settled quickly)

b) Use the errata process to update the spec as soon represntational
details are solved.

I think a telecon might be useful if there is disagreement on next steps.

   cheers,
       harry



> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> Harry,
>>
>> You've already received feedback from the CFRG about why this is unwise,
>> with regards to the still ongoing discussions. I appreciate your
>> enthusiasm, but there are still significant open issues being discussed.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg06425.html
>>
>> In case that feedback wasn't clear, Watson did the courtesy of explaining
>> more in depth why this matters:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg06433.html
>>
>> As noted, while the debate about the curve has settled, there is still
>> active and ongoing discussion of the representations which need to be
>> resolved.
>>
>> To be clear, I'm wanting to allow the process time to complete.
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 14 March 2015 02:37:02 UTC