Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23: Abstain
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I concur with others' ballots about this not being in scope for lwig, and I am not sure why it was not instead moved to CFRG as it was originally suggested by Magnus. Giving the history and the several reviews from the crypto panel I will not block, but I don't think it is correct to ballot No Objection. A couple of points below. As Roman noted in his COMMENT (which could be raised to a DISCUSS level IMO): the IANA requested values that are in the Standards Action With Expert Review range should not be assigned, since this is an Informational. I trust that the responsible AD, the DE for the registries and IANA will pay attention to that. Thanks to Erik Thormarker for his review; Erik raised the two points below: * What is the reason for the y-coordinate of the basepoint for Wei25519 (appendix E in draft) to be in this document the inverse of the basepoint of W-25519 in NIST draft 186-5? * Clarification question: why would someone want to use ECDSA with Wei25519 instead of P-256? Has this been clarified in the document? Francesca _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
