Hi Erik:
Could you *please* let me know when the lwig curve draft will be
scheduled for IESG telechat again? I do not understand why you make
events that can be reasonably prevented by timely actions
self-fulfilling prophecies. Please note that I suggested putting this
on the calendar Jan 25th (after you suggested this yourself earlier),
with various reminders since.
I do not want to have to take this to the list, but see no other
choice. Please also see the background info on this file below (for
everyone to see).
Please also see Daniel Migault's email below on, who provided
independent assessment of reasonable-ness.
[email Daniel Migault of Feb 9, 2022, 11:16am EST]
I seems reasonable this document passes the IESG before the IESG get
renewed as it currently has in mind the history of the draft.
Rene
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: (--> iesg telechat agenda) Re: Fwd: New Version
Notification for draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23.txt
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:07:39 -0500
From: Rene Struik <[email protected]>
To: Erik Kline <[email protected]>, Mohit Sethi <[email protected]>
CC: Mohit Sethi <[email protected]>
Hi Erik:
I had a quick look at the iesg telechat agenda slots [1].
I asked for an IESG telechat date before a roster change of ADs, since adding
yet more friction by stalling this document further is, in my mind, really
unwarranted.
From the IESG telechat agendas for upcoming meetings, I see no reason this
could not be scheduled for March 3rd, the next opportunity after this week.
This could then be
brought up again March 10th, if necessary.
Given that the document had been withdrawn three times from the telechat
narrowly before discussion was scheduled to take place (see below), there
should have been
ample time for ADs to give this document a look (there were three opportunities
before).
I do not understand why one would have to ask Sec ADs when they wish things to
be put on the agenda: isn't that your prerogative? Besides, those who cared
already did
their own "yanking off the agenda" acts, so no reason to make this a repeat
affair.
I have seen offline comments by Ben Kaduk almost 9 months ago, which I all
considered and responded to at the time. I have seen none articulated by Roman
Danyliv, the
other Security AD. So, most likely, technical DISCUSSES will be a repeat of
offline chatter almost a year old, but now out in the open.
Final note: please note Carsten Bormann (re Magnus Westerlund's DISCUSS)
suggested timeline for resolving the tiny iana item, in email Feb 17, 2021,
7.25am EST [4]:
"But I don’t want to create another obstacle for lwig-curve-representations now, so
maybe we could do 1 *and* 2. Let’s decide this later today."
Background info:
Upcoming telechats:
(a) Feb 17: 405 pages; (b) March 3: 159 pages; (c) March 10: 77 pages; (d)
April 7: 44 pages.
History of scheduling the lwig curve doc for iesg telechat ([2], my email time
stamps):
a) doc status change: Feb 3, 2021
-changed to "IESG Evaluation", by Erik Kline;
a) first agenda slot: Feb 18, 2021
yanked off the agenda the evening before, Feb 17, 2021, 11:56pm EST, by Erik
Kline;
b) second agenda slot: July 15, 2021
-scheduled by Amy Vezza on June 22nd);
-yanked off agenda via "DEFER" action the evening before, July 14, 2021, 7.08pm
EST, by Ben Kaduk;
c) third agenda slot: Aug 12, 2021
-triggered by Ben Kaduk's DEFER (see b) above);
-yanked off agenda 1 1/2 days before, Aug 10, 2021, 6.47pm EST, by Erik Kline;
Note: accompanied by status change to "Waiting for Write-up" (inconsistent with
[3])
Ref:
[1]https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/
[2]https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations/history/
[3]https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iesg
[4]https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/ZJG-pzuIRtMnHdCK9g74XWmXYds/
On 2022-02-14 3:36 a.m., Erik Kline wrote:
Rene,
Just to let you know where things are at right now. I've sent email
to the current and incoming SEC ADs to see if they'd like this on the
last telechat (March 10th) before the IESG changeover, or the earliest
telechat after the changeover.
No matter which telechat the document appears on, the incoming SEC AD
will have to ballot since Ben's ballot will expire after the SEC AD
handover and it usually takes several weeks of back-and-forth to
resolve all comments on any given document (especially with some folks
actually traveling to Vienna).
I don't know what kind of reviewer Paul (incoming SEC AD) will be, but
I hope to close the loop this week and have it booked accordingly.
Thank you,
-Erik
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:23 PM Rene Struik <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Erik:
Can you make sure that the lwig curve draft gets back on the iesg
telechat agenda (I did not see this listed)? I would like us to avoid
more disruptions in the future due to iesg membership changes with
Security ADs in March. In fact, I think we should be able to finish
this before then.
Thanks, Rene
On 2022-02-09 11:16 a.m., Daniel Migault wrote:
I seems reasonable this document passes the IESG before the IESG get renewed as
it currently has in mind the history of the draft.
I understand this draft get a higher priority over the remaining draft in lwig.
Yours,
Daniel
________________________________________
From: Lwip<[email protected]> on behalf of Rene
Struik<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:58 AM
To:[email protected]
Cc:[email protected]; The IESG
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23.txt
Dear Erik:
Could you please make sure the lwig curve draft ends up on the iesg telechat
agenda again asap?
I think we should (and easily can) get this draft done before there is another IESG
roster change (due to AD changes in March). Next week, it will be precisely one year this
draft was first put on the iesg telechat agenda (Feb 18, 2021, to be precise). Let us
make sure we do not need candles to "celebrate" one year of zero progress.
Thanks for your help!
Apologies for sending this message via the mailing list: however, for some reason,
none of my offline email messages sent to you since January 13, 2022 seemed to have
reached you (or, at least, have been replied to). I did see other emails from
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> address, so presume that
address still works (if this assumption is incorrect, please let me know).
Rene
On 2022-01-21 6:32 p.m., Rene Struik wrote:
Dear colleagues:
I updated the lwig curve draft, so as to take into account (1) another crypto
review panel review this draft was subjected to by the powers that be; (2)
discussions on ECDSA with the SHA3 family hash functions that took place on the
COSE mailing list and offline Nov-early January.
Changes:
a) Section 7 (Implementation Status): included reference to ANSSI's (French
information security agency) use of lwig curve draft, including motivations
(hooray);
b) Appendix B.1 (Elliptic Curve Nomenclature): made definition of isomorphic
curves in Appendix B.1 more precise, via one-sentence change (zero impact on
draft, but done for completeness);
c) Appendix I (Data Conversions): added Definition of ASCII symbols (with
reference to RFC 20);
d) Appendix Q (ECDSA): corrected numerical examples for ECDSA w/ Wei25519 and SHAKE-128
(Appendix Q.3.2) and ECDSA w/ Wei448 and SHAKE-256 (Appendix Q.3.3). Here, it turned out
that the Python code in Sage that I used incorrectly implements the FIPS 202
specification of SHAKE128 and SHAKE256. To do this properly, I implemented all SHA3
functions from scratch on the bit-level and had this vetted independently via contacts at
NIST. To indicate that ECDSA w/ Wei448 and SHAKE256 uses FIPS 202-conformant SHAKE256, I
added in Section 4.3 as reference to FIPS 202 "see Section 6.3 of [FIPS 202]").
BTW - adding ASCII (point c) above) above was motivated by desire to avoid
bit/byte-ordering ambiguity and set the record straight.
I made a few (very few) typographical and cosmetic changes throughout the
document, in an attempt to make the crypto review panel reviewer happy. (Time
will tell.)
I hope this helps.
Best regards, Rene
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23.txt
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 14:56:26 -0800
From:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Rene Struik<[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23.txt
has been successfully submitted by Rene Struik and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations
Revision: 23
Title: Alternative Elliptic Curve Representations
Document date: 2022-01-21
Group: lwig
Pages: 150
URL:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23.txt
Status:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations/
Htmlized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations
Diff:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23
Abstract:
This document specifies how to represent Montgomery curves and
(twisted) Edwards curves as curves in short-Weierstrass form and
illustrates how this can be used to carry out elliptic curve
computations leveraging existing implementations and specifications
of, e.g., ECDSA and ECDH using NIST prime curves. We also provide
extensive background material that may be useful for implementers of
elliptic curve cryptography.
The IETF Secretariat
--
email:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 287-3867
--
email:[email protected] | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 287-3867
