API review for X25519/X448

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

API review for X25519/X448

Adam Petcher
Now that the JEP[1] for X25519/X448 key agreement is a candidate, we can
proceed with the API and specification review. Please review the
proposed API spec[2] and provide comments by the end of Saturday, 
January 13, anywhere on earth. At that point, I will combine your
feedback with the initial feedback from the CSR group[3] and submit the
API for final review by the CSR.

The only significant change to the API since our last discussion[4] is
that I changed the names of the key specs and interfaces from "XDH..."
to "XEC..." This makes them more general and reusable in things like
XEdDSA[5] and other non-Diffie-Hellman cryptosystems based on the
representations/operations defined in RFC 7748[6].

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/324
[2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189806
[3] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/Main
[4]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-September/016325.html
[5] https://signal.org/docs/specifications/xeddsa/
[6] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7748

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: API review for X25519/X448

Anders Rundgren
On 2018-01-03 17:26, Adam Petcher wrote:

Since this is quite similar to what I proposed some 6 month ago
https://github.com/cyberphone/java-cfrg-spec
I can only give it a +100 :-)

Cheers,
Anders
now looking forward to the signature support.

> Now that the JEP[1] for X25519/X448 key agreement is a candidate, we can
> proceed with the API and specification review. Please review the
> proposed API spec[2] and provide comments by the end of Saturday,
> January 13, anywhere on earth. At that point, I will combine your
> feedback with the initial feedback from the CSR group[3] and submit the
> API for final review by the CSR.
>
> The only significant change to the API since our last discussion[4] is
> that I changed the names of the key specs and interfaces from "XDH..."
> to "XEC..." This makes them more general and reusable in things like
> XEdDSA[5] and other non-Diffie-Hellman cryptosystems based on the
> representations/operations defined in RFC 7748[6].
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/324
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189806
> [3] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/Main
> [4]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-September/016325.html
> [5] https://signal.org/docs/specifications/xeddsa/
> [6] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7748
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: API review for X25519/X448

Adam Petcher
In reply to this post by Adam Petcher
+core-libs-dev (to get some additional API guidance)


On 1/3/2018 11:26 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:

> Now that the JEP[1] for X25519/X448 key agreement is a candidate, we
> can proceed with the API and specification review. Please review the
> proposed API spec[2] and provide comments by the end of Saturday, 
> January 13, anywhere on earth. At that point, I will combine your
> feedback with the initial feedback from the CSR group[3] and submit
> the API for final review by the CSR.
>
> The only significant change to the API since our last discussion[4] is
> that I changed the names of the key specs and interfaces from "XDH..."
> to "XEC..." This makes them more general and reusable in things like
> XEdDSA[5] and other non-Diffie-Hellman cryptosystems based on the
> representations/operations defined in RFC 7748[6].
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/324
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189806
> [3] https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/Main
> [4]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-September/016325.html
> [5] https://signal.org/docs/specifications/xeddsa/
> [6] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7748
>