Closed kwantam closed 4 years ago
Per @grittygrease's statement in #291, I think once we're happy with this text we should push an updated draft and request feedback on the cfrg list about this.
Thanks @chris-wood! I pushed a very small edit that refs to the domain separation recommendations from the appendix, but now I'll stop messing around with it :)
The edits still look good :-) I suggest we take this to the list now. (@armfazh is out this week and won't be able to review for a while.)
What's the best way to do this? Ref the list to this PR?
What's the best way to do this? Ref the list to this PR?
Yep, that’ll do!
@kwantam shall we merge this? There's been no pushback, and it seems like the best option (in my opinion).
Looks good to me.
Feedback has been more positive than negative, so I think it passes the bar for inclusion :+1:
There is a small remaining question that we can decide not to address now: if the ristretto draft adds decaf for edwards448 we might also want to give a recommendation for that. Happy to merge this and update later if that becomes necessary.
There is a small remaining question that we can decide not to address now: if the ristretto draft adds decaf for edwards448 we might also want to give a recommendation for that. Happy to merge this and update later if that becomes necessary.
I heard that Mike might join the ristretto255 draft and add decaf448 in the process. When that happens, we can that method in a followup PR.
This PR adds a short appendix that defines a hash_to_curve--like function for ristretto255.
Closes #291