- From: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@nadim.cc>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:30:20 -0400
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
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 > > Curve25519 is also something that would prohibit the ECDSA signatures that follow X9.62, so a spec update is required anyways. > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote: > As a heads up for those not following the cfrg mailing list at the IETF. > > > > It is possible that we will need to make the ECPoint typedef be a property of the curve rather than the algorithm name. There are discussions about the curve Curve25519 and it�s point representation which do not use the X9.62 specification and in fact are specified as being little endian rather than big endian. (They are looking at only passing the x if I understand things correctly but that is a big if at this point.) > > > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.tls/11878 > > > > jim > > > >
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2014 01:30:48 UTC