Thanks! On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:10 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 06:41:09AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > The text here isn't totally generic, as it refers to scalar > multiplication > > and u-coordinate > > point input. So, if we had some other ECDH-type thing that didn't have > these > > concepts, then we would have yet new text. > > > > In the interest of the minimal change, I suggest: > > > > "For X25519 and X448, the calculations are as follows" > > ... > > > > "For these curves, implementations SHOULD use..." > > > > How does that sound? > > Yeah, passable. > > I do not think it is likely we need to add another DH function (due > to threat of QC making ((H)EC)DH go away), and even if we do, it is > just some extra text. The PQC asymmetric key exchanges will be KEMs, > which have pretty different behavior from existing things. > > > > -Ilari >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
