Ambiguity in ECDSA and secp256k1 implementation
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 1.8k
- Forks
- 320
- Avg merge
- 11d 15h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
ECDSA is a kind of algorithm while secp256k1 is a kind of curve used in ECDSA. However, the two things are listed at the same level in peer-ids. And there are other kinds of curve like secp256r1 and secp384r1 that can be used in ECDSA but not mentioned in the sepc.
Therefore, I propose that we make secp256k1 support a MUST when supporting ECDSA and other curves a MAY. This also means we stop listing secp256k1 and ECDSA at the same level.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the key-types section in peer-ids/peer-ids.md and compare how ECDSA and secp256k1 are currently listed. Review the treatment of secp256r1 and secp384r1, then update the specification so the required and optional curve support is unambiguous and the key types are organized consistently.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- cryptography, documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100