Oops hold it on that paywall URL issue. I responded with a different
paper. All else is still ok, but let me dig a big more on that paper
for non-IACR members.
On 1/18/21 11:06 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 1/18/21 9:12 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Standard
TD ;LR : more work to be
X25519 (and x448) is the only curve remaining in HIP DEX.
In checking on this, I see I do need to remove text from 9.3 which is
the only remaining reference.
Of course there is the valid question of why x448 is still there.
Probably should remove it as well.
So looking into p384:
If you
On 1/19/21 9:44 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Standard
Bob,
Thank you for your reply. I took some time to review the points. Look
for EVY2> below but at first sight, this looks really good to me now.
Of course, Roman and Ben will have a final say.
About Ekr’s comment, I am reading
Bob,
Thank you for your reply. I took some time to review the points. Look for EVY2>
below but at first sight, this looks really good to me now. Of course, Roman
and Ben will have a final say.
About Ekr’s comment, I am reading your latest email sent minutes ago, and I am
still unclear where,
Thanks for the link. However, this paper appears only to cover X25519. We'd
need a comparison of this to P384, etc. in order to assess the relative
performance of SIGMA-style protocols with NIST curves with HIP-DEX with
X25519
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:35 AM Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
> Ah, found
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Host Identity Protocol WG of the IETF.
Title : HIP Diet EXchange (DEX)
Authors : Robert Moskowitz
Rene Hummen
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 7:29 AM Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/19/21 9:44 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your reply. I took some time to review the points. Look for
> EVY2> below but at first sight, this looks really good to me now. Of
> course, Roman and Ben
Two months after the email below, I sending a kind reminder to authors and WG.
With the -22, a lot of (if not all ) SEC ADs’ DISCUSS points should have been
addressed.
As far as I can tell, the other remaining issue was Ekr’s one about why
forfeiting FS when some algorithm could do it in a
TD ;LR : more work to be done, deadline this Thursday 21st
Bob,
Thank you for the -23 (and Adam W for the footwork) and I understand that you
are quite busy.
Here is the link to the diff between -21 and -23:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-dex-23=draft-ietf-hip-dex-21
On 1/18/21 9:12 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Standard
TD ;LR : more work to be done, deadline this Thursday 21st
Bob,
Thank you for the -23 (and Adam W for the footwork)and I understand
that you are quite busy.
Here is the link to the diff between -21 and -23:
More fine-tuning.
Please look at the diffs.
Please note, that I have not been able to find any energy consumption
numbers to go along with the cycles for the EdDSA signing and
verifying. I do not believe it is trivial; not from conversations I
have had. Also I am not sure you can simply
11 matches
Mail list logo
