[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: consistency in naming for elliptic curves...

  The magic numbers that are not referenced by RFC2409 were not
properly allocated by IANA. There are IANA considerations in
RFC2409 that were not followed when these other numbers were
allocated. I'm hoping that IANA will rescind these shortly.

  Dan.

On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:48:31 PST you wrote
> The following text is in the IKE magic numbers file
> (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipsec-registry) at the IANA.
> I'm trying to update my MIB textual conventions for final release, and these
> give me pause:
> 
>   Group Description                           Value       Reference
>   -----------------                           -----       ---------
>   default 768-bit MODP group (section 6.1)      1         [RFC2409]
>   alternate 1024-bit MODP group (section 6.2)   2         [RFC2409]
>   EC2N group on GP[2^155] (section 6.3)         3         [RFC2409]
>   EC2N group on GP[2^185] (section 6.4)         4         [RFC2409]
>   Reserved to IANA                              5  
>   EC2N group over GF[2^163] (Section 2.1)       6         [Panjwani]
>   EC2N group over GF[2^163] (Section 2.2)       7         [Panjwani]
>   EC2N group over GF[2^283] (Section 2.3)       8         [Panjwani]
>   EC2N group over GF[2^283] (Section 2.4)       9         [Panjwani]
>   EC2N group over GF[2^409] (Section 2.5)      10     [Blake-Wilson]     
>   EC2N group over GF[2^409] (Section 2.6)      11     [Blake-Wilson]
>   EC2N group over GF[2^571] (Section 2.7)      12     [Blake-Wilson]
>   EC2N group over GF[2^571] (Section 2.8)      13     [Blake-Wilson]
> 
> First, are the two groups of EC2N groups really of the same type?  That is,
> is GP[] distinct from GF[], or is this a typo.  
> 
> Second, the pairs of EC2N groups differing only in the "section number" is
> very confusing.  Is that truly the only difference?  Isn't there any more
> edifying name.
> 
> Also, I see that value 5 has been set aside, it has been assigned in at
> least one Internet Draft.  Is it being "held" for modp1536, or has it been
> abandoned due to conflicting assignments in different Internet Drafts?
> 
> I definitely want to get the textual-conventions MIB out for last call
> before this IETF meeting.
> 
> I've had to delete all the numbers that had only been in the IKE revision
> Internet Draft, since I cannot cite it if I want to go onto RFC standards
> track.
> 
>
References: