The ambiguous naming has been a source of confusion for me. I've argued with people, who I won't name, who told me more or less that I was confused because I used "Curve25519" to refer to the D-H function specifically, and not GF(2^255-19).
https://twitter.com/bascule/status/393221414775312384 I'm happy to have this cleared up whatever way possible. I would recommend keeping the name "Curve25519" for the D-H function and coming up with a new name for GF(2^255-19). Crazy suggestion: GF25519 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Trevor Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On a different list, Dan Bernstein suggested renaming the Curve25519 > ECDH function [1] to "X25519", and taking the name "Curve25519" for > the underlying curve. > > Since cryptographers are increasingly discussing the underlying curve > it makes sense to have a distinct name for it. But I don't think we > should rename a function that's become so widely known to > implementors. > > Cryptographers are a small tribe of smart people. If the curve was > given a specific name ("P-25519" or whatever), they will quickly > adapt. > > Implementors are numerous and more easily confused. We've gotten used > to calling this specific function "Curve25519". > > Dealing with an "X25519" function that is the same as the old > "Curve25519", but not necessarily compatible with uses of the new > "Curve25519", seems unnecessarily confusing. > > So while clarifying the names here is a great idea, it seems better > not to change the name from its most common use. > > Trevor > > > [1] http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/curve25519-20060209.pdf > _______________________________________________ > Curves mailing list > [email protected] > https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/curves > -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ Curves mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/curves
