Subject: [Cfrg] Schnorr Recommendations -> was Re: IEEE 1609 requirements (was Re: Curve selection revisited)

From: Paul Lambert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:16:55 -0700

On 7/28/14, 9:14 PM, "Watson Ladd" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>Yes! In particular, whatever choice is made by CFRG is likely to be
>>more widely supported in hardware than any alternative, so CFRG's
>>choice will be the strongest candidate to replace ECDSA if it has
>>sufficient advantages.
>
>Well, unfortunately we are not adopting Schnorr signatures at this
>time. (We probably should).

Yes.  Do you have a recommendation for a specific Schnorr variant?

I¹ve inserted 'new curves' in other entity based standards work
and it is the natural time to also update the signature algorithm.

Paul