On Apr 9, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Dan Harkins <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it looks fine and I have a nit that the authors can ignore > if they like. > > I don't like the fact that RFC 5903 does not list a specific value for > "a" in the parameter set definition and instead just says -3 in the > equation for the curve. This draft does the same sort of thing in > Section 2.3 by saying, "for groups 19, 20, 21, a=-3, and all other > values of a, b and p for the group are listed in the RFC." Which to > me sounds like it's the same value: minus three. > > Note that RFC 5114 also defines these groups but lists the proper > (to me) value for "a". It's probably not right to just refer to RFC 5114, > especially since RFC 5903 is listed in the repository for those curves, > so my nit would be to change it to "for groups 19, 20, and 21, > a = -3 mod p, and for all other values...." just to let the reader who > might not be so familiar with the topic know that "a" is not the same > for each curve.
This sounds like a good clarification. Authors: please revise the draft with this (and whatever text you can to clear up Michael Richardson's earlier confusion). --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
