Subject: [CFRG] Second RGLC on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:04:57 +0300

Dear CFRG participants,

This message starts a second 3-week RGLC on "Pairing-Friendly Curves"
(draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-09), that will end on April 9th.
See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves/
for the latest version of the draft.

We are having the second RGLC since Yumi Sakemi has provided (see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2-LVS6EXc4TfY1zlHRGUXe3cu6w/)
replies for the questions raised after the first RGLC.

Please send your comments, as well as expression of support to publish as
an RFC (or possible reasons for not doing so) in reply to this message or
directly to CFRG chairs.

Regards,
Stanislav, Nick and Alexey

---

From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:55:02 +0000

Any thoughts about this: 

https://www.rdworldonline.com/rare-open-access-quantum-computer-now-operational/?spMailingID=42069&puid=908719&E=908719&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=42069 

Excerpts:

A new Department of Energy open-access quantum computing testbed is ready for the public. Scientists from Indiana University recently became the first team to begin using Sandia National Laboratories’ Quantum Scientific Computing Open User Testbed, or QSCOUT. . . .

Sandia plans to expand the system from three to 32 qubits over the next three years so scientists can perform more sophisticated tests.

What’s the commercial deployment time-frame and lifetime for this draft?

--

Regards,

Uri

There are two ways to design a system. One is to make is so simple there are obviously no deficiencies.

The other is to make it so complex there are no obvious deficiencies.

                                                                                                                                     -  C. A. R. Hoare

From: CFRG <[email-masked]> on behalf of "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 07:09
To: CFRG <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tetsutaro Kobayashi <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [CFRG] Second RGLC on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves

Dear CFRG participants,

This message starts a second 3-week RGLC on "Pairing-Friendly Curves" (draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-09), that will end on April 9th. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves/ for the latest version of the draft.

We are having the second RGLC since Yumi Sakemi has provided (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2-LVS6EXc4TfY1zlHRGUXe3cu6w/) replies for the questions raised after the first RGLC.

Please send your comments, as well as expression of support to publish as an RFC (or possible reasons for not doing so) in reply to this message or directly to CFRG chairs. 

Regards,

---

From: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:52:50 -0400

Hi Stanislav:

I am puzzled that the 2nd WGLC is on rev09 of the pairing curve draft 
(i.e., the one posted on Nov 16th last year).

On Nov 11th, I posted another review on rev08 of this document (see [1]) 
{for my review of the previous rev07 version, see [2]}.

I could not find any response by the authors to my detailed comments of 
my rev08 review. Since they posted the current rev09 version (that is 
under 2nd WGLC) on Nov 16th, considerations of those comments must have 
happened within that 5-day time window. The authors, however, stated in 
[3] "Because we are currently considering Rene's latest comments, I'm 
sorry but this version does not reflect them".

Isn't the normal step to consider received comments? If so, isn't the 
2nd WGLC premature?

(FYI - the authors only commented - after almost four months - on my 
minor note regarding normative vs. informative reference classification, 
but not at all on the much larger review I did in [1].)

Best regards, Rene

[1] Review RS of draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-08 (Nov 11, 2020):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/kAQwgiKejMby4aYONkQzt0ZiOOU/

[2] Review RS of draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-07 (July 12, 2020):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/pW71h3yUETnqedHsH0m3rwzPnm4/

[2] Message Yumi Sakemi on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-09 
(Nov 16, 2020):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/NNpHIWGOvsSBd22gg7Ve10zDhT4/

On 2021-03-18 7:04 a.m., Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev wrote:
> (draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-09), that will end on 
> April 9th. See 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves/> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2-LVS6EXc4TfY1zlHRGUXe3cu6w/ 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2-LVS6EXc4TfY1zlHRGUXe3cu6w/>) 
> Please send your comments, as well as expression of support to publish 
> as an RFC (or possible reasons for not doing so) in reply to this 
> message or directly to CFRG chairs.
>
> Regards,
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

-- 
email: [email-masked] | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 287-3867

---

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:23:36 +0300

Dear Rene,

Yumi replied to the received comments in the following message in December:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2i183zl28y4fK54oIwqEfEVVu0U/ (after
the line "Followings are our reply comments for Rene's comments in RGLC.").
After that message there were two messages in the mailing list with support
of the draft, no new concerns.

After that message there was also one clarifying message from Yumi in
February about the normative references (I asked to send that message since
I had found out that that comment remained unanswered).

Regards,
Stanislav

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 15:52, Rene Struik <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I could not find any response by the authors to my detailed comments of my
> rev08 review. Since they posted the current rev09 version (that is under
> 2nd WGLC) on Nov 16th, considerations of those comments must have happened
> within that 5-day time window. The authors, however, stated in [3]
> "Because we are currently considering Rene's latest comments, I'm sorry but
> this version does not reflect them".
>
> Isn't the normal step to consider received comments? If so, isn't the 2nd
> WGLC premature?
>
> (FYI - the authors only commented - after almost four months - on my minor
> note regarding normative vs. informative reference classification, but not
> at all on the much larger review I did in [1].)
>
> Best regards, Rene
>
> [2] Message Yumi Sakemi on draft-irtf-cfrg-pairing-friendly-curves-09 (Nov
> 16, 2020):
> CFRG mailing [email-masked]://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>
>
> --

---

From: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 20:35:56 +0300

Dear CFRG,

This is to cancel the Second RGLC for Pairing-Friendly Curves for now.

A part of the questions (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/kAQwgiKejMby4aYONkQzt0ZiOOU/
from Rene Struik with the additional concerns related to the -08 version of
the draft) raised in the list has not been replied publicly. The replies
for other reviews were provided in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2i183zl28y4fK54oIwqEfEVVu0U/;
all later messages contained only support of the draft, but that does not
change the fact that one part of the concerns has not been discussed.

Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience.
The RGLC will be restarted after all received comments are discussed
publicly in the mailing list.

Regards,
Stanislav

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 18:23, Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> After that message there were two messages in the mailing list with
> support of the draft, no new concerns.
>
>> my rev08 review. Since they posted the current rev09 version (that is under

---

From: Michael Scott <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:45:01 +0000

The purpose of this proposed draft standard entitled “Pairing Friendly
Curves” is to suggest standardised state-of-the-art curves for the safe
implementation of pairing-based cryptography. The clue is in the title. The
curves suggested are not controversial, and they are well enough described
to allow unambiguous implementation (I have done it myself).

I think  that the draft under consideration is not intended as, and should
not be judged as, an attempt to vindicate the whole field of pairing-based
crypto. It is just about the curves.

The comments  from Rene do not anywhere suggest any problem with the curves
themselves. Clearly “ditching” the whole proposal (as he suggests) would be
a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Might I suggest that the proposers cut back their proposal so as to just
describe the curves, some test vectors, and a heavily curtailed
bibliography. There is no actual requirement for much of the surrounding
commentary. I don’t think this document needs to take on an educational
brief. A reference to the excellent “Guide to Pairing-based Cryptography”
would suffice. Of the RFCs I have attempted implementations from, the
shortest have always been the best.

The alternative  would be an attempt to respond point-by-point to Rene’s
objections in order to keep the draft in its current shape. I suspect that
this would involve multiple over-and-backs (as some of Rene's concerns seem
pretty opaque to me), and would be a waste of everyone’s time.

Mike Scott

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:36 PM Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>> as an RFC (or possible reasons for not doing so) in reply to this message
>>> or directly to CFRG chairs.
>>>
>>> Regards,