[Cfrg] Enough already!

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A591A8977 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:45:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BahBg3mMk0i3 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com (mail-yk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02F911A8840 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:42:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 19so6782278ykq.8 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:42:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=srtax1S0vPKTrtYmjd2P3r6sZzE8H0+hdEk0dpZpa7A=; b=dT5NwrpZmrtCF2HThBvpN2LK+IATqRSHt+MD1MSi28s8lq5XUZiOlPX+s8ws/NZTWy SsHp6uMuFeTjNORf4KZjEVxhx4Cf/uYai5P914hR4MHRDUqIXQGZFcuiUPP2sUvulWV/ nGud3bNzsVPjHpOWZTmAkgObSEBCNZGxDnYNqU7nzLCEVroepgfxtuO68gTVjgCvcJBx Q28fEjqORhQQ+ADq34qmQPUhBpVw9jMB5yafZHR9xMu83NkauabKi0/1/F8HmtF1EZvm rBOUbX1jr0eKYd+Er38KhnHhycDJRYjdAdChfnzhaU3sjzuCd84xamxHtBZ1x0TBMi+y f5Zg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.61.8 with SMTP id v8mr1359080yhc.44.1422376951211; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.115.77 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:42:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0c=Mx9rWwQpGmK9gDH0bDRTVWtspy_D1=pJ3QHTdRrs8XA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/4vt-h_RWK1_4eQu4HKd_rUlVwqc>
Subject: [Cfrg] Enough already!
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:45:18 -0000

Does anyone have any security objection to what's in the original TLS draft?

So why can't the TLS WG proceed with it?

Are we seriously going to spend another month (if we're lucky!)
arguing about endianness?

This is a catastrophe we should be sure not to repeat at higher
security levels by making rules and having a competition as opposed to
go play a game of Calvinball.

If we can't expeditiously answer basic questions in a reasonable
timeframe, people are going to avoid asking those questions. And they
are going to be worse off for it. The CFRG was sorely underutilized in
the past: I don't see any reason why a IETF WG would ask us anything
now.

A month ago I accused the chairs of continuing the farce. That was too
nice: it's a full-blown fiasco now. And I don't see any plans to avoid
it in the future. A year later, and we have a starting point with
unspecified future changes being considered, and arguments that popped
up over that year, coming back to life.

Is there a definite time at which we will be well and truly done?

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd