On Tuesday, August 26, 2014, Trevor Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >
(Very much agree; the situation seems to be even worse for "P-25519", Ed25519, Ed25519-SHA2, and EdDSA, which no one seems to understand the difference between.) Microsoft's naming convention actually makes some sense; they've named the curves by the *least* common isomorphic form. But I'd kind of like to see new curve names incorporate more information about the *curve*, rather than just prime field and form. (Perhaps encoding that some parameter is minimal, for rigid curves?) - David
_______________________________________________ Curves mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/curves
