FROST Internet Draft Guidelines

toposware / frost

A fork of frost-dalek, made WASM compatible, and upgraded to Static ICE-FROST

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License

14 stars 2 forks source link

FROST Internet Draft Guidelines #35

Open Nashtare opened 2 years ago

Nashtare commented 2 years ago

Although we have drifted away from the original FROST protocol, we may want to get closer to the FROST Internet Draft developed at https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-frost.

chris-wood commented 2 years ago

I'm glad to see this issue! It shouldn't take much to align with the emerging FROST specification. There are test vectors to assist in the process, too. Do you foresee any technical reasons that would prevent you from making this switch?

Nashtare commented 2 years ago

Hey! Thanks for your interest! I'd say that what is "preventing" us from currently working on this is:

because this is not really a high priority for us at the moment
because the FROST spec is still under development, and I'd rather wait for it to stabilize beforehand

Nevertheless, I think that adopting a common approach for implementing FROST (or in this case its variants) would be really beneficial for the community, hence this issue that will be definitely addressed someday! :)

chris-wood commented 2 years ago

Thanks for clarifying =) Can you help me understand what "stabilize" means here? For example, would you consider it stable if it had an RFC, or if it had consensus in the CFRG where it's being specified, or something else? (The IETF process is really complicated, so if any of this is unclear to you I am happy to provide more details!)

Nashtare commented 2 years ago

I am not super aware of the whole IETF process to be honest, but I didn't imply anything specific like an RFC, rather to wait for the draft at https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-frost to be more stable before starting (it's being constantly updated these days, with some core protocol specification changes that may impact the code refactoring).