Subject: Re: [CFRG] Last call for draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf-09

From: Nick Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:49:13 -0500

Dear CFRG,

Thank you for all the reviews and comments on this draft. The last call was
successful and the draft will be moved forward towards publication.

Authors, please review the final PR and submit a new version of the draft.
https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf/pull/3

Nick (for the chairs)

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 9:38 PM Leonid Reyzin <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Thanks to everyone who chimed in on the last call. Particular thanks to
> Chris Peikert, Jiayu Xu, Riad Wahby, Chris Wood, Burt Kaliski, Antonio
> Marcedone, and Brian Chen for the detailed reading and comments! We have
> responded to some comments already; we will work through the rest and
> produce an updated draft shortly.
>
> Best,
>
>  Leo
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 3:11 PM Nick Sullivan <nick=
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Dear CFRG participants,
>>
>> The VRF draft has received significant reviews from the RG and the
>> crypto panel and is ready for a second last call. This email commences a
>> last call for this document that will end on the last day of IETF 112
>> Online (12 Nov 2021):
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf/
>>
>> If you've read the document by the end of this period and think that it
>> is ready (or not ready) for publication as an RFC, please send a message in
>> reply to this email. Detailed comments would be helpful. You can reach out
>> directly to CFRG chairs ([email-masked]) if you have questions
>> about the process.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Nick, Stanislav & Alexey
>> _______________________________________________
>> CFRG mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>>
>

---

From: Leonid Reyzin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:28:16 -0500

Thank you, CFRG chairs!

We accepted this PR.

There are still a few outstanding comments we are fixing. We will complete
this work shortly, respond to the comments on this list, and submit a new
version.

Best,

 Leo

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:49 AM Nick Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear CFRG,
>
> Thank you for all the reviews and comments on this draft. The last call
> was successful and the draft will be moved forward towards publication.
>

---

From: Leonid Reyzin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 21:10:22 -0500

Dear ]CFRG,

We have completed the work of responding to comments. Here's the final set
of changes based on comments we received. We will be posting an updated
version of the draft shortly on datatracker.

1) We renamed hash-to-curve to encode-to-curve, to be consistent with the
terminology in the hash-to-curve draft. See [this commit](
https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf/commit/1b1cd9a0f5809723b508bd9d73e61783d3718051
)

2) We made the draft more flexible with respect to the hash salt. Our hash
salt for the existing ciphersuites remains the public key. However, we now
allow the possibility that additional future ciphersuites will define a
different hash salt. This feature is useful when multiple public keys want
to share the same salt in order to make sure the same inputs hash to the
same outputs for multiple public keys, which can facilitate higher-level
protocols built on top of the VRF. This change required adding the public
key as input to the ECVRF_challenge_generation (in case it is not a salt in
hash-to-curve) and thus also changed portions of the test vectors. This
change is in [this pull request](
https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-vrf/pull/4).

Cryptographically yours,

 Leo