[curves] Curve25519 naming / renaming

[Tony Arcieri]

The ambiguous naming has been a source of confusion for me. I've argued
with people, who I won't name, who told me more or less that I was confused
because I used "Curve25519" to refer to the D-H function specifically, and
not GF(2^255-19).

https://twitter.com/bascule/status/393221414775312384

I'm happy to have this cleared up whatever way possible. I would recommend
keeping the name "Curve25519" for the D-H function and coming up with a new
name for GF(2^255-19). Crazy suggestion: GF25519


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Trevor Perrin <trevp at trevp.net> wrote:

> On a different list, Dan Bernstein suggested renaming the Curve25519
> ECDH function [1] to "X25519", and taking the name "Curve25519" for
> the underlying curve.
>
> Since cryptographers are increasingly discussing the underlying curve
> it makes sense to have a distinct name for it.  But I don't think we
> should rename a function that's become so widely known to
> implementors.
>
> Cryptographers are a small tribe of smart people.  If the curve was
> given a specific name ("P-25519" or whatever), they will quickly
> adapt.
>
> Implementors are numerous and more easily confused.  We've gotten used
> to calling this specific function "Curve25519".
>
> Dealing with an "X25519" function that is the same as the old
> "Curve25519", but not necessarily compatible with uses of the new
> "Curve25519", seems unnecessarily confusing.
>
> So while clarifying the names here is a great idea, it seems better
> not to change the name from its most common use.
>
> Trevor
>
>
> [1] http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/curve25519-20060209.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> Curves mailing list
> Curves at moderncrypto.org
> https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/curves
>



-- 
Tony Arcieri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/curves/attachments/20140826/5ab36d83/attachment.html>