Re: [Cfrg] Enough already!

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 17:20 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 5BC291A888B for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 LYQEYKWWKGya for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x233.google.com (mail-yk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48AAE1A888A for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 142so6878078ykq.10 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FjEWPjeRug6RffhPjbNiTMXf2fDzaP7tMJgXycY90Ho=; b=e0iNJeOgndrjbpwojkQ1DVUmCKhFaHRKAkVfJBxkVqnx4rlxFdDGm7Oclxe0PJuj4/ OhsRVL5W+KKtJHFs8QottHIKLMBuobPM4Vb0OdqvSj2Q9ud2wL1s2HX+d0PEATboIC2T KTvYEZuGEKuCtWz0Xni15dS/lC+7eZ/vgCg5RFhUUEKDwapa/1pSmwCHIklLAUtRPsut yKjbreOkkPbOPMATF1n2p75byPNf3q/ghjzUD+a1ChWleAcYF21ubJXRWqcKAx8QzbYg +TnvxGY1ilZk3Ytdt/nAfoy3NqRVYlLa7BMR+RPwAvAGioH0aqJXcsVPXpMCJCi66Nyn O7pw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.11.45 with SMTP id 33mr1431122yhw.4.1422379244582; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.115.77 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <607a42362766a5cd5952255513ec65e8.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
References: <CACsn0c=Mx9rWwQpGmK9gDH0bDRTVWtspy_D1=pJ3QHTdRrs8XA@mail.gmail.com> <607a42362766a5cd5952255513ec65e8.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:20:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cneQHKe9YKKs3rMMy9SHsN=Vbjjj005tZSVSQavTa0bXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/A8zKDlLPaCndVYyZdMqBhLDmakE>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [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 17:20:47 -0000

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, January 27, 2015 8:42 am, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> 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.
>
>   -1
>
>   We are answering basic questions, you just don't like the answers.

And what question would that be? We've devoted far more energy to
which byte goes first then to discussing the merits of various
signature proposals.

>
>> 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.
>
>   Apparently your naiveté has finally been confronted with reality. Last
> year I told you it would take something like 2 years to get an RFC published.
> You said no, it should only take 30 minutes. This is how sausage gets
> made.

No, this is how bikesheds get painted. Are you seriously thinking this
is preferable to a contest with requirements on timing and content of
proposals for the higher security levels?

>
>   Dan.
>
>



-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin