Re: [Cfrg] Time to recharter CFRG as a working group? Was: Re: [secdir] ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 12/03/2019 19:02, Salz, Rich wrote:
>   *   Big +1 here.  It's not broke, so let's not fix it, especially for purely process-wonk reasons.
> 
> Super-singular-isogeny-strong agreement.

FWIW, I also agree. CFRG's doing well. I see no need for it to
be a WG and I think there are advantages in it being an RG, e.g.
it may smooth interaction with academic cryptographers a bit.
(If there were a groundswell for such a change I'd not object
but it doesn't look like it so far.)

I would still like to see almost all crypto mechanism related RFCs
come via CFRG though and not the ISE. (There'll always be the
potential for exceptions so I think "almost all" is about right.)
The kind of review one can reasonably expect for ISE publications
is no longer sufficient given that we now actually use and depend
on this crypto stuff to a far greater extent than say 10 years ago.
No disrespect to the ISE, nor the folks who volunteer to help the
ISE review stuff, but I'd be happier if we had a more open and
transparent process with broader/deeper expertise available for
reviewing. (And in fact CFRG does have such a process already.)

S.


> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>