Re: [Cfrg] would it be a good idea for CFRG to try review algorithm documents?

[Björn Edström <[e-mail]>]

With the proper expectations from all parties involved I personally
see no issues with this. Then again, I'm not really a strong voice in
this community so better listen to more people. :-)

I would not expect the CFRG participants to put in hours or days of
novel research into submissions. I would expect CFRG participants to
be reasonably up to speed with their line of research, and would be
able to point to research that supports or cast doubt on the viability
of a proposal. (Basically Stephens example in his response to Yoav).

The situation I'd like to avoid happening to the Internet is basically this:

1) A strong security construct is standardized as RFC NNNN that has
years and years of research behind it. The security is deemed viable.
There is much to rejoice.
2) A couple of years go by.
3) A draft is written that points to the security of RFC NNNN (e.g.
some integration to some other technology).
4) Approximately at the same time some new research is published that
breaks RFC NNNN in a non-negligible way.
5) The problem in 4 is not caught.

I expect that CFRG would catch 4 so precautionary measures can be
taken w.r.t. to the draft.

So my 2 cents here would be that I can live with more emails if the
end result is better quality output.

Best
Björn


On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Nevil Brownlee <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Björn et al:
>
> Hmm.  I try to find several crypto experts to review 'security' drafts
> in detail as part of the Independent Stream review process.
> However, asking CFRG to take a look too could be a good idea - as
> long as the CFRG members wouldn't regard such requests as spam?
>
> Cheers, Nevil (Independent Submissions Editor)