Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 21 December 2013 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 928F21ADFE2 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:04:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] 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 QCfqASP17ZHW for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769231ADFDC for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B36CBE83; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:04:07 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id utH78kBy2e2e; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:04:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.5] (unknown [86.46.19.19]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E9D9BE5D; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:04:06 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <52B5D80C.20706@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:03:56 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>
References: <CAGZ8ZG2f9QHX40RcB8aajWvEfG0Gh_uewu2Rq7bQGHYNx6cOmw@mail.gmail.com> <45FC33A8-1944-4DCD-B88E-2A6B6CC4A39B@netapp.com> <CAGZ8ZG3077tdr03nTD5E3DMVXeKVC6-sgs7oWVHPaPHe_mQ8KA@mail.gmail.com> <52B5D0CB.8060108@cs.tcd.ie> <CAGZ8ZG3GfzL3NPpeVY_RrS08y6TLQtgWXksx5m25Ng6WO8FzNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ8ZG3GfzL3NPpeVY_RrS08y6TLQtgWXksx5m25Ng6WO8FzNg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:04:11 -0000

On 12/21/2013 05:53 PM, Trevor Perrin wrote:
> 
> My impression is that WGs such as TLS do indeed rely on CFRG opinion.
> Perhaps that's their choice rather than an IETF mandate.  Nonetheless
> it does occur, as was quite clear in the handling of Dragonfly:

Yes, dragonfly was handled that way. I can't recall when was
the time before that to be honest, so its rare. My main point
was that you shouldn't expect a large well-informed population
of IETF participants when it comes to this discussion. Those
that are well-informed, are probably here already.

S.