Hi Ivaylo:

I do not understand what the role of the CFRG is with this: should they confirm that if (r,s) is a valid ECDSA signature for message m with signing key Q, then so is (r,-s)? Or, is there more to this?

FYI - the ECDSA signing equation is e:=h(m)=s*k-d*r (mod n), where r:=x(R) (mod n), R:=k*G, Q:=d*G, so r=x(R)=x(-R) and e=s*k-d*r (mod n) = (-s)*(-k) - d*r (mod n). QED.

Is the idea to have this one-line verification being blessed by someone from CFRG (which I consider myself also part of), Scott Fluhrer or anyone who can do modular arithmetic could do this one-line check. As I already indicated in my email of July 27, 2021 [2],

   As already indicated in the email below (July 21st), the draft does not 
contain new crypto and only uses a public and reversible (r,s) to (r,-s) 
signature transformation, if need be. This should therefore allow for a very 
quick start-to-finish project, where enabling this simply depends on defining 
code points or another unique cross-reference and getting this out of the door.

This was published in the peer-reviewed SAC 2005 conference, used in SAC 2010 again, presented at IETF-78 (July 2010, i.e., 11 years ago!), presented at NIST in 2009 [1]. What more does one need?

I think the time is there to move forward on this extremely simple suggestion and get this done. IETF should be able to move fast if there is no reason to let things linger forever.

Rene


Ref: [1] https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/events/cryptographic-key-management-workshop-2009/documents/rene_struik_kmwjune09_5min.pdf [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/FXnznttsnNvlYcu_PX70itFJO_A/

On 2021-11-06 6:13 p.m., Ivaylo Petrov wrote:
Hello Rene,

Thank you for your email! It was brought to my attention that during IETF 111 secdispatch (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/minutes-111-secdispatch-00) it was decided no code points to be assigned before the CFRG reviews the document. Could you clarify if that has already concluded and if not, what will be the purpose of the presentation?

Thanks,
Ivaylo


*Ivaylo Petrov*


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).

It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without the written consent of the sender.

If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete the message and any file attached to it. Thank you!



On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 7:03 PM Rene Struik <[email protected]> wrote:

    Dear Ivaylo:

    I would like to ask for a presentation slot for the COSE/JOSE
    meeting Wednesday next week.

        Title: code points for fast-verification friendly ECDSA
        Presenter: Rene Struik

    For context, please see my email of Tue Nov 2, 2021 below.

    Best regards, Rene

    On 2021-11-02 12:36 p.m., Rene Struik wrote:
    Dear Ivaylo:

    I presented a mechanism for putting ECDSA signatures into a
    format that facilitates verification speed-ups, both in
    single-verify and batch verification settings [1]. While this
    technique (known for more than 1 1/2 decades) is generally
    applicable, I believe this would be especially useful to
    implement with JOSE and perhaps COSE right now, given
    Covid-vaccination records using ES256 in the smart healthcard
    specifications [3] (proposed with IATA, etc.). For the main idea,
    see [1]. For a JSON Web signature example, see [2].

    Do you think I could briefly present? I would like to ask for a
    code point for JOSE and others down the road.

    I think I could simply present the example of [2] and some
    applications.

    Best regards, Rene

    ref: [1]
    
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-struik-secdispatch-verify-friendly-ecdsa-00#section-9.3
    
[2]https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-22#appendix-Q.3.4

    [3]https://smarthealth.cards/

    On 2021-10-31 10:06 a.m., Ivaylo Petrov wrote:
    Hello all,

    This is a call for agenda items for our session at IETF 112. 
    Please
    send them to the chairs and/or this list.

    We have a slot for Wednesday, November 10, 2021 Session II
    (14:30-15:30 UTC).

    Thank you,

-- COSE WG Chairs
    Matthew, Mike and Ivaylo

    _______________________________________________
    COSE mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose



-- email:[email protected] | Skype: rstruik
    cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 287-3867

    _______________________________________________
    COSE mailing list
    [email protected]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose


--
email:[email protected]  | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 287-3867
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

Reply via email to