> On 4 Nov 2015, at 9:29 PM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:56:15AM -0500, Watson Ladd wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Ilari Liusvaara >> <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: >>> >>> X25519 and X448 specifications say zero keys MUST be rejected (and >>> the functions are also internally specified to clear the cofactor). >> >> The language used in the current draft doesn't clearly say you must >> use the definition in CFRG curves which does this with cofactor >> business, and in fact doesn't include the string X25519. > > I made PR #16 about this (renamed the functions and added the zero > checks).
Link to the PR: https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/16/files Are we all OK with renaming Curve25519 to X25519 (and same for Curve448) ? Yoav _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
