Re: [P1363:] 1363.3: Using generalized schemes / choice of pairings
Dear William,
> One of Nigel Smart's comments was that the schemes in 1363.3
> should be generalized to allow a choice of pairings. Any thoughts
> about this? I've heard off-list that the BF proposers don't think
> this is valuable to them, but off-list conversations aren't
> definitive.
>
> * Does it make sense for all schemes?
> * Does it make sense for some schemes only?
> * Is it too early in the use of IBE to start standardizing
> different pairings, and should we focus on a single
> interoperable specification?
Different pairings may not be too relevant for the original BF scheme in
particular, but they are crucial for other identity-based protocols. Some of
them present very different features when instantiated on distinct choices of
pairings.
For instance (I apologise for this example but it is the one that most easily
comes to my mind to make my point clear), McCullagh-Barreto identity-based key
agreement provides key escrow when there is an efficiently computable
isomorphism (or projection) psi: <Q> -> <P> for a pairing e: <P> x <Q> -> <g>;
this is the case of pairings defined on supersingular curves or when <Q> is
not the trace-zero subgroup, while for essentially all other pairings key
escrow is infeasible. It is not hard to devise IBE schemes with similar or
anyway related properties.
Best wishes,
Paulo Barreto.
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, mail LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the body of the message containing: SIGNOFF STDS-P1363-DISCUSS
Send any concerns to STDS-P1363-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
or manage subscriptions at http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa
Visit IEEE P1363 on the web at: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363
______________________________________________________________________