Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-12

The RFC type requested is Informational. The type of RFC is indicated on the page header. This is an informational document that describes how different types of elliptic curve representations can be interchanged so that they can use the same underlying implementation without many changes. Hence the requested RFC type is correct.

Technical Summary: The draft provides information on how Montgomery and (twisted) Edwards curves can be represented in the short-Weierstrass format. More specifically, it describes how points on Curve25519 and Edwards25519 specified in RFC7748 can be represented as points on a curve called Wei25519. This allows the re-use of the same underlying cryptographic implementation for supporting different curves.

Working Group Summary: Several security people in the working group explicitly highlighted their interest in this draft. This included Tero Kivinen, Hannes Tschofenig, and Carsten Bormann. Since this draft is crypto-heavy only a few working group members were able to provide detailed reviews. Nikolas Rösener has reviewed and implemented the draft. No objections were raised against this draft at any stage in the working group.  

Document Quality:  There is one known open implementation of the draft which is also noted in section 7. The document was sent to the Crypto Review Panel for review through Alexey Melnikov.  Stanislav Smyshlyaev reviewed the entire document and the formulae. All the minor comments from Stanislav and his team were addressed by the author. 

The document shepherd is Mohit Sethi. The Area Director is Suresh Krishnan.

The document shepherd reviewed the document. The document shepherd relies on the review from the Crypto Review Panel for correctness of all the formulae listed. The document could benefit from an additional round of review from the Security directorate.  

The author has confirmed that he is not aware of any IPR on this draft. 

The WG considers that the problem addressed in the document is relevant, especially for platforms where the amount of code is a concern. The WG as a whole does understand the problem addressed in the draft, however only a few individuals understand the details.  No one has threatened any appeal or indicated extreme discontent. No nits were found by the document shepherd.  No other automated checks were performed by the document shepherd. 

The categorization of informative and normative references seems to be correct. All normative references are to published ANSI, NIST, and IETF standards. No downward normative references exist. The publication of this document will not lead to change of status on any existing RFCs.

No new IANA registries are created. The document defines registers alternative representations (Wei25519) in the corresponding COSE and JOSE registries. The values requested require "Standards Action With Expert Review" however the requested RFC type is Informational. However, Jim Schaad who is one of the experts for the IANA registries has stated in a private email thread that the IANA section of this draft looks correct.
Back