Low-Cost Area-Efficient FPGA-Based Multi-Functional ECDSA/EdDSA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written, fluent, with clear pictures and explanations. However, there are some drawbacks:

1. the introduction is rather focused on describing the standardization process and the importance of ECC cryptography and its variants. Several sentences are given about hardware implementations (with many references), but no broader overview is given about the efforts to date for more efficient FPGA implementations. Normally, this section should provide more details about the advantages and disadvantages of previous design solutions so that the reader can gain valuable insight into past (hardware) results. From this perspective, the final table comparing this solution to other previous implementations does not provide enough information.

2. I suspect that the word "brands" used in line 110 has no place here. "Branches" sounds more appropriate. Also, CSAs are used instead of "is used" (line 116).

3. no pictures are offered with the experimental setup, including and not limited to simulation results. Also, other technical details such as throughput, latency, number of bits processed in this experimental scenario are not provided. 

4. it is not explained why the 2nd implementation (Virtex 7) occupies more area  for the same implementation (7,172 vs 5,957).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors provide a design that can combine multiple ECC algorithms. It is very interesting and suitable for publication in Cryptography. However, it needs to be major revised before accepted for publication. The comments are as follows:

1. What is novelty of this study? The authors should compare with similar studies by other researchers and discuss in manuscript.
2. What are the relations between Fig. 3 ~ Fig. 5? The authors should discuss in detail in manuscript.
3. The conclusions of this study are very weak, such as the first line “In this proposal, …”. The authors should rewrite the conclusion and describe the highlight of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript has been revised and replied according to my previous comments. It could be accepted for publication in Cryptography.