Re: [Cfrg] Request from W3C WebCrypto Working Group

On 03/06/2015 10:07 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2015 12:53 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> CFRG,
>>
>> The W3C Web Cryptography Working Group has a deadline of March 12th on
>> their dependency on CFRG's recommendations, in particular [1]:
>>
>> "The WG will not decide which additional curve to integrate before
>> IETF/CFRG shares its recommendation. Once this recommendation shared,
>> based on timing constraint, algorithm maturity, the WG will make
>> decision about integrating the curves, in accordance with the extensible
>> mechanism the WG will decide, according to bug 25618. In case IETF/CFRG
>> does not share recommendation before the Web Crypto API move to Proposed
>> Recommendation, there will be no curve added."
>>
>> Thus, unless there is something I'm not aware of, the CFRG has
>> recommended for the 128 bit security level the curve specified in this
>> document:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-curves-01
> 
> It's not enough to have a curve. One needs to know what the values are that
> need to be computed, and how these values are represented.

Note that Trevor Perrin started down this path re ECDH:

http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/WebCryptoCurve25519/Curve25519-WebCrypto.html

So we could continue and co-ordinate with CFRG re representational
issues. However, we need a clear signal from CFRG that indeed, Curve
25519 would be suitable for the 128 bit security level. I believe that
consensus has been found inside CFRG, not sure when the plan was to send
it to the outside the world.

   cheers,
        harry

> 
> Sincerely,
> Watson Ladd
>>
>>   cheers,
>>       harry
>>
>> [1]
>>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/DispositionOfComments/WebCryptoDispositionOfComments.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> 

Re: [Cfrg] Request from W3C WebCrypto Working Group - confirmation on recommendation